In contested proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989, His Honour Judge Willans has concluded two children should remain with their father under a supervision order, preferring “good enough” parental care over a safer but more interventionist placement.
The decision was handed down at the Family Court in West London following a January hearing before HHJ Willans. The public law proceedings were preceded by private law proceedings commenced by the father in early December 2023, when placement with the father was confirmed and an interim supervision order made.
In the latest hearing, the court was asked to decide whether it was in the best interests of the children to continue living with their father and have contact with their mother, or to be placed with their paternal aunt under a special guardianship order and have contact with both parents.
The applicant local authority, the mother and the children’s guardian were in favour of the special guardianship order, with the local authority to be the designated authority under any supervision order.
The father’s position was that the children should remain with him, but he also accepted that his sister would provide good enough care for the children.
The focus of the hearing was on the adequacy of the father’s care, following incidences of assault against the mother that had resulted in arrest.
The mother is aged 25, and the father 35. Both had difficult childhoods including each experiencing abuse of various kinds, and histories of drug use and abuse. They both have criminal convictions, with the father having a lengthy criminal history including weapons, theft, robbery and domestic abuse.
The parents met in 2021 and their first child was born in 2023. Incidents of assault on the mother by the father were first recorded in 2021 and continued into 2023, when the couple first separated. They continued to meet and had their second child in 2024, until a further alleged assault, which the father denies and for which he is awaiting criminal trial, ended the relationship for the final time.
The court heard that during the disputed assault, “the father is alleged to have been under the influence of alcohol, caused criminal damage to the property in which the mother lives and both hit and strangled the mother in the course of the event”.
On the examination of the evidence put forward by the mother, father and an independent neighbour witness, as well as CCTV, the judge was able to determine that the mother’s account was largely credible save that he did not find there was strangulation.
Also in contention was the father’s consumption of alcohol and substance misuse. Previous directions had included hair strand testing, along with parenting assessments, a family-safety assessment, and alternative carer assessments.
The matter before the court was the assessment of “risk of a future domestically abusive relationship between him and a future partner(s)”. All parties agreed that “were this to happen the impact on the children would be significantly harmful”.
The judge noted that he must establish whether:
“…the children suffered significant harm arising out of the care given to them by their parents with such care not being what would be expected from a reasonable carer or whether the children were likely to suffer significant harm based on the care they would likely be given were an order not made.”
He noted:
“Interventions based on risk of future harm raise four questions: (1) The Court must first identity the type of harm that might arise; (2) The Court must then assess the likelihood of that harm arising before considering; (3) The consequences for the child should that arise, i.e. the likely severity of harm in such circumstances, and; (4) risk reduction and mitigation that might be offered / put in place in the light of the above and the prospects for the same being effective.”
The court was asked to determine whether the disputed incident was proved on the balance of probabilities and if so, what findings should be made; whether the statutory threshold for public law intervention had been crossed, and if so, what placement would meet the children’s welfare, and how to assess the various tests and evidence in reaching the welfare decision.
In determining that continuing the children’s current arrangement was in their best interest, the judge disagreed with the children’s guardian.
He concluded that the threshold for public law intervention was met, but that the children’s welfare was best served by remaining in their father’s care under a 12-month supervision order rather than being placed with their aunt.
Noting the case was finely balanced, the judge explained:
“Having considered all the evidence placed before me I have decided the outcome most consistent with the children’s welfare is to continue the current arrangement supported by a 1-year supervision order.”
This supervision order was made in favour of the new designated local authority and must include funded provision for domestic abuse work, with a written risk-management and contact structure. The father must continue substance-related support and undertake cognitive behavioural therapy, and it is recommended the family receive rehousing support.
The judge emphasised that the court’s role is not to identify the best possible placement, but the placement that is proportionate and consistent with the children’s welfare. He also gave weight to the steps taken by the father to address his substance abuse, and motivation and commitment to change.
He concluded:
“I have reflected on the competing options of placement with the aunt or father. Whilst the former has the attraction of offering greater confidence regarding the risk factors in the case the latter has the benefit of evidence of continuing good care and avoids the impact on the children of having to move. The positives the aunt offers do not disappear if the children remain with their father.
“Ultimately the evidence suggests the father is currently providing good enough care and I can see no justified basis for changing this situation.”
A & B (Children) (Placement with parent or SGO) [2026] EWFC 19 (B)
