{"id":754476,"date":"2026-04-29T14:18:38","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T12:18:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/"},"modified":"2026-04-29T14:18:38","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T12:18:38","slug":"b-children","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/","title":{"rendered":"B (Children)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Lord Justice Moylan: Introduction: 1. The London Borough of Hackney appeals from a supervision order made at the conclusion of care proceedings by His Honour Judge Oliver on 1st July 2019. The case concerns two children, M now aged 7 and W now aged 3. 2. At this hearing the Local Authority was represented by Mr Pavlou; the mother by Ms M. Jones; and the Guardian by Ms Ellis. The mother opposed the appeal as did the Guardian who made submissions strongly supporting the judge\u2019s decision which had been in accordance with the Guardian\u2019s evidence and recommendations. The children\u2019s respective fathers have taken no part in the proceedings. 3. The thrust of the Local Authority\u2019s case before the judge was that the mother was not able to meet the care needs of the children, in particular the elder child because of his specific needs arising from his having autistic spectrum disorder and a reactive attachment disorder. The latter disorder, and aspects of his behaviour, were said to be due to neglect and trauma arising from the care he had received. The final care plans proposed that M should be placed in long-term foster care and that W should be placed for adoption. No application for a placement order had been made and the judge refused to short-circuit the process applicable to such applications. 4. In the Local Authority\u2019s Skeleton Argument, this appeal was said to be \u201cessentially a challenge to the learned judge\u2019s welfare analysis and the disproportionate weight given to the child M\u2019s recent improved presentation over the weight of the expert evidence and the underlying unmet emotional needs of the children\u201d. However, during the course of the hearing of this appeal, it became clear that the Local Authority\u2019s case significantly comprised a challenge to the adequacy of the reasons given by the judge for his decision. 5. At the conclusion of the hearing we informed the parties of our decision, namely that the appeal would be dismissed. These are my reasons for agreeing with that decision. Background 6. I only propose to set out a very brief summary of the background to provide some context for the care proceedings and the judge\u2019s decision. 7. The Local Authority first became involved with the family in 2011 following a serious incident of domestic abuse by the mother\u2019s then partner, the father of M. There were continuing incidents of abuse and a child protection plan was put in place for M. The mother\u2019s relationship with M\u2019s father ended, it would appear, in late 2013. In early 2016 the mother began a relationship with W\u2019s father which was also abusive. Both children were made subject to child protection plans. 8. The judge summarised the reasons for the Local Authority\u2019s involvement as follows: the mother\u2019s \u201cpoor emotional health; her engagement with professionals and support services; some domestic violence; her capacity to care for M who has a diagnosis both of autism and reactive attachment disorder; her parenting capacity; and her misuse of drugs\u201d. Both of the fathers were \u201chigh risk perpetrators of domestic violence\u201d and the children had been \u201cexposed to serious incidents of domestic violence and they have had to leave home at short notice\u201d. 9. The mother and professionals had been raising concerns about M\u2019s behaviour from late 2013. M was referred for a specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service assessment in December 2017. The consequent report by a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and a Clinical Psychologist, dated 7th March 2018, concluded that it was \u201cvery difficult to agree on a definitive diagnosis [because] early adverse experiences; domestic violence and unsettled childhood co-exist with neurodevelopmental difficulties\u201d. M was \u201ca very sweet 6 year old child, whose early negative experiences had impacted hugely on his ability to self-regulate his emotions\u201d. Despite the difficulties in making a diagnosis, the authors of the report concluded that a diagnosis of \u201cautism spectrum disorder and reactive attachment disorder\u201d was justified. This meant that M \u201chas significant additional needs that need to be adequately provided for both at home and elsewhere\u201d. A number of recommendations were made including additional support for M at school and for the mother. 10. I would also note that an EHCP plan was provided for M in October 2018. This made a number of recommendations and led to M being provided with full-time support at school. Care Proceedings 11. Care proceedings were instituted in April 2018. HHJ Oliver was the allocated judge throughout. Their resolution was very significantly delayed largely because, as explained by the judge, of \u201can attempt to get some therapeutic work\u201d. 12. The Local Authority sought care orders in respect of both children. As referred to above, the final care plans proposed long-term foster care for M and placement for adoption for W. 13. The principal factual issues addressed in the proceedings were: the mother\u2019s emotional and mental health; the mother\u2019s engagement with professionals and support services; the impact of the mother\u2019s parenting on the children; the children\u2019s parenting needs especially M\u2019s because of his diagnosis of autism and reactive attachment disorder; the mother\u2019s ability to meet the children\u2019s emotional needs, in particular M\u2019s additional needs; the mother\u2019s capacity to effect changes in her parenting with therapeutic treatment; and the potential consequences for each of the children if they remained in the mother\u2019s care and if they were removed and placed as sought by the Local Authority. 14. At the start of the proceedings the Local Authority applied for interim orders under which M would be placed with foster carers under a care order and W would remain with the mother under an interim supervision order. 15. The Guardian provided her first report on 24th April 2018. It is a thorough and thoughtful report. Its conclusions were based on a careful analysis of the Local Authority\u2019s evidence and of the Guardian\u2019s own enquiries. She had seen the mother and the children at their home and had spoken to M\u2019s deputy head teacher and safeguarding lead. The teacher noted that \u201cnow they had an official diagnosis\u201d for M, there was \u201cso much they could be doing\u201d. It was the teacher\u2019s opinion that separating M from his mother would \u201ccause him more harm than good\u201d; she did not think \u201che would cope\u201d in a \u201cnew environment\u201d. 16. The Guardian did not agree with the Local Authority\u2019s plan to remove M from his mother\u2019s care. She expressed concern that, \u201cgiven M\u2019s ASD and attachment disorder, \u2026 interim separation would cause him harm and he may find any transition very difficult to adjust to\u201d. She recognised that the children were \u201cat times \u2026 likely to have been exposed to inadequate parenting\u201d. However, it was her opinion that \u201cthe emotional harm to M would be greater if he was removed from his mother\u2019s care at this stage\u201d. In her view \u201cthis is a case that is categorised by ongoing cumulative harm\u201d and not one in which the evidence demonstrated that M was \u201cat risk of imminent significant harm from his mother\u201d. 17. On 14th May 2018, HHJ Oliver determined the application for interim orders. He rejected the Local Authority\u2019s application in respect of M and made interim supervision orders in respect of both children. 18. The Anna Freud Centre provided an assessment report in August 2018. It is a detailed report. The mother was determined to have personality difficulties, \u201cthough these do not reach [the] criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder\u201d. It was also observed that she had \u201cexperienced extremely poor parenting from a very young age\u201d. She had had \u201cperiods of time in the care system and multiple moves of care placement\u201d. It was recommended that the mother \u201cneeded to engage with treatment to address the impact of her psychological difficulties \u2026 on her ability to parent her children safely\u201d. 19. The report concluded that M\u2019s \u201coverall functioning was seriously impaired\u201d and that his difficulties \u201ccould not be wholly explained by a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder\u201d. He needed \u201cwell-above average parenting\u201d and it was \u201cthe view\u201d of the \u201cassessment team\u201d that the mother was unable to provide this parenting. This led to a recommendation that M should be placed outside the family. 20. The report noted that the mother \u201cappeared to be able to parent W in a warmer, more engaging manner\u201d but that there \u201cwere concerning signs that W demonstrated avoidant behaviour in relation to her mother\u201d. Recommendations were made \u201cto address the concerns about W\u2019s presentation\u201d. These included that the mother have \u201clong-term, intensive treatment\u201d at the EYPU (the Early Years Parenting Unit at the Anna Freud Centre) \u201cto address the impact of her psychological difficulties on her capacity to provide W with safe, predictable, emotionally responsive care\u201d. 21. The report\u2019s conclusions in respect of M led the Local Authority again to propose that M should be removed from the mother and placed with foster carers. It would appear that, following a hearing at which the Local Authority sought the listing of an interim care order hearing, they did not pursue this application. 22. The parties then agreed, and the judge ordered, that the EYPU should be instructed to assess the mother\u2019s capacity to change. The assessment began in January 2019. 23. A psychological assessment of M was obtained for the proceedings from a clinical psychologist, Dr McDowell. She provided a written report in November 2018. She recorded the deputy head teacher\u2019s view that there had been \u201ca considerable (positive) contrast in M\u2019s behaviours on a consistent basis\u201d. The report concluded that M had \u201ccomplex social, emotional and behavioural needs\u201d due to a \u201cmultitude of predisposing factors [including] early development experiences, congenital predispositions and environmental factors\u201d. Later in the report it was said that M\u2019s \u201cbehaviours are related to both a neurodevelopmental deficit and a disordered relationship with\u201d the mother stemming from \u201cinconsistent parenting\u201d. As a result M would \u201crequire a range of support \u2026 to address his needs\u201d including \u201ctherapeutic intervention\u201d. 24. On the question of future placement, Dr McDowell was of the opinion that the mother \u201cwould currently be unable to meet all of M\u2019s needs\u201d. M needed carers who \u201chave a full comprehensive understanding of his complex needs and who can provide consistent support for both ASD and RAD\u201d. Any foster carer would need support and training, including therapeutic support. In the psychologist\u2019s opinion the mother \u201cwill require ongoing counselling and support to address the trauma she has experienced from her own experience of an inconsistent parent and being a victim of domestic violence\u201d. In order to be able \u201cconsistently to meet M\u2019s needs, (the mother) would need to consistently engage in therapeutic support over time \u2026 this would be a long-term process\u201d. 25. When asked to comment on the impact on the children if they were removed from the mother\u2019s care, Dr McDowell said that this would \u201cof course have an emotional impact\u201d. It was likely that M would \u201cfeel a sense of abandonment and loss and initially \u2018act out\u2019\u201d. It would require \u201ca well-planned transition programme\u201d. 26. A report was also provided by a psychotherapist, Mr Bolton, to whom the mother had been referred by a therapist as \u201crequiring a secondary care psychological intervention\u201d. Mr Bolton did not consider that any decision could be made about future treatment until the assessment by the EYPU had concluded. If the mother was not going to receive treatment at the Anna Freud Centre, then treatment could be offered \u201chere, within the Specialist Psychotherapy Service\u201d. The \u201cfirst intervention would be an 8 week psychoeducational group focussing on mentalisation\u201d. There would then be \u201ca wait of a couple of months for a treatment place to become available\u201d. 27. The EYPU provided its \u201cAssessment of Capacity to Change\u201d report on 11th March 2019. This formally only addressed the mother\u2019s capacity to effect change \u201cwithin W\u2019s timescales\u201d although M had also attended one or two of the sessions and a later report referred to the benefits of the mother being able to use treatment at the EYPU \u201cto address her parenting difficulties in respect of\u201d M. The report concluded that the mother had shown \u201cthe capacity to effect changes in her parenting by engaging in long-term, intensive treatment\u201d and recommended that the family \u201cproceed to the EYPU 18-month treatment programme\u201d. This included the proposal that M should, again, attend some sessions. This commenced at the beginning of March 2019. 28. The subsequent report from the EYPU is dated 7th May 2019. This set out that the planned programme of treatment had not progressed because the mother attended only some of the planned sessions. A meeting \u201cto try and find a way to help (the mother) reengage with treatment at the EYPU\u201d was not successful with the mother focussing on what she said had been the Local Authority\u2019s failure to provide promised financial support to enable her to attend the programme. The mother then decided not to continue with the treatment. The authors of the report were of the view that there was \u201cvirtually no prospect of [the mother] engaging with therapeutic help of any kind\u201d although, if \u201cit were decided that she should re-engage in treatment at the EYPU, we would be willing to work with [the mother] under the clear condition that she undertake to work openly, honestly and collaboratively with staff, other parents and the Local Authority\u201d. If she did not, the children \u201cwould continue to be at serious risk in her care\u201d. 29. Dr McDowell provided a further report in May 2019 which addressed the placement of both children including whether they should be placed together or separately. 30. In her opinion, M\u2019s complex needs meant that he required \u201ca high level of multi-agency support\u201d. He \u201chas an adverse reaction to change; it is extremely anxiety provoking and stressful for him\u201d. The \u201cemotional effects [and the associated behaviours] of being separated from his mother\u201d meant that it was \u201clikely that his behaviour will initially deteriorate\u201d and it was \u201cessential\u201d that he be placed with foster carers \u201cwho are very experienced with caring for children with significant complex difficulties\u201d. They should be provided with \u201cappropriate support\u201d. Dr McDowell was also concerned that \u201cbeing separated from W, if she is matched with an adoptive family, would be a considerable emotional distress for M\u201d. 31. She did not consider that W had any specific needs. There would be \u201closs and grief associated with being removed from her mother [and possibly brother] and there is likely to be an impact on her psychological and emotional well-being\u201d. 32. The report identified the \u201cmany benefits to the children [of] being placed together\u201d including maintaining the sibling bond they have. Separating them would \u201chave a significant impact on their well-being\u201d although \u201cclose and regular contact may reduce\u201d this. However, if they were placed together and then W was moved to an adoptive placement, as proposed, they \u201cwould both experience the feelings of loss again in a very short space of time\u201d. This would be likely to be particularly detrimental to M\u2019s development. 33. The ultimate conclusion of the report was that the children should be placed separately. This would provide them with the best opportunity to have their individual needs met although Dr McDowell commented that the \u201cmedium to long-term impact of the transition into foster care is difficult to predict and is going to be heavily dependent upon the quality of support they both receive\u201d. 34. The Guardian\u2019s final report is dated 20th May 2019. This contains a detailed assessment of the case which was based on the Guardian\u2019s own extensive enquiries, which included a number of visits to the family home, as well as the other evidence. I propose to deal with this at some length given, what I consider to be, the impressive quality of the Guardian\u2019s analysis, which the judge clearly accepted. 35. The Guardian set out a summary of her observations from her home visits. The home was \u201cwelcoming and warm\u201d. The mother and the children had \u201calways engaged with me and it has been a pleasure to work with the family\u201d. M and W were \u201cfriendly, smart and articulate children with senses of humour\u201d. She had seen \u201cclose relationships between [the mother] and the children\u201d with \u201cemotional affection towards both children, boundary setting and positive interactions\u201d. The children were \u201cvery close as siblings\u201d and had \u201ca lovely relationship\u201d. 36. M told the Guardian that \u201cI only want to live with my mummy and\u201d W and that if \u201cthey take me away I will be angry and I will run away\u201d. The Guardian expressed concern that no specific therapeutic provision had been put in place for M; in her view it was \u201ccrucial that something is put in place for M at the end of these proceedings\u201d. 37. W was \u201can advanced little girl with good language skills and likes to assert her independence\u201d. She \u201cloves [two named toys] and playing games with\u201d W. M\u2019s nursery did \u201cnot have any concerns with respect to W and she is achieving in all areas\u201d. 38. The Guardian summarised the risks which had reduced during the course of the proceedings. In her opinion, the mother had gained insight into her mental health needs and \u201cnow accepts the need for her to undertake some intensive therapeutic work for herself and to improve her parenting\u201d. The mother had also \u201cmade significant efforts to address the concerns with respect to her parenting\u201d. The Guardian noted that M\u2019s \u201cpresentation and worrying behaviours have reduced\u201d; these changes were likely to be due \u201cto a change in how the school is working with M but also because [the mother] has made attempts to change her parenting\u201d. The children were \u201cnow consistently cared for by\u201d the mother. 39. The Guardian also set out a number of continuing risks. These included: that the children\u2019s emotional needs would not be \u201cunderstood and subsequently not met by\u201d the mother; that the mother might \u201cfollow previous patterns of completely disengaging with all services once the pressure of these proceedings has disappeared\u201d; and that the children\u2019s attachment difficulties would increase \u201cand the window to support them missed\u201d. The mother needed to be able \u201cto fully commit to a therapeutic programme and to work with the Local Authority in the best interests of the children\u201d. The mother was a \u201ccapable woman who can be a capable parent\u201d: the \u201cissue is her ability to consistently apply herself to [being a capable parent], accept support and sustain positive change\u201d. 40. In conclusion, the Guardian described the case as \u201ccomplex\u201d and as being \u201cfinely balanced\u201d; \u201call options put forward for M and W are not without risk to their overall emotional welfare\u201d. Looking at the options, if M were to remain with his mother there was \u201ca real risk that he would not receive the reparative parenting that he requires\u201d. If he was removed from his mother and placed in foster care, the \u201cinevitable\u201d emotional impact would be \u201cmore significant given his existing emotional and complex needs\u201d. The Guardian was \u201cvery concerned about the potential for future placement breakdowns as it is likely that M\u2019s behaviour and presentation would decline if removed from his mother\u2019s care\u201d. She also took into account the positive relationship between the children and considered that the \u201cprospect of separating the siblings is not something to be underestimated\u201d. Additionally, the Guardian was \u201cworried that M would feel responsible for being removed and that future placement instability would further compound his RAD and ultimately place him at more risk of significant emotional harm\u201d. She also observed that children like M \u201cdo not fare well in Local Authority care and the prospect of him experiencing significant instability in the care system needs to be balanced against his current circumstances\u201d. She wanted to know more details about his proposed placement and \u201cthe transition plan\u201d. 41. The Guardian also addressed each of the potential placement options for W: remaining with the mother; long-term fostering; and adoption. She did not support adoption because, in her opinion, the concerns \u201care not so significant for W that such permanent interference with family life is necessary\u201d. M\u2019s \u201cearly years were significantly more traumatic that W\u2019s and EYPU point out that the concerns with respect to W are far less than M\u201d. The Guardian recognised that there were risks for W from each of the other options. She considered the \u201clikely emotional impact on W if she is removed from\u201d the mother\u2019s care; and the \u201cpossible emotional impact\u201d if she remained with the mother and the mother did not fully engage with the proposed therapeutic treatment and \u201cmake the required changes\u201d. Based on her assessment of the potential consequences of each course, the Guardian concluded that it was in W\u2019s best interests for her to remain with the mother \u201cwith the right support in place\u201d. . 42. At the final hearing the judge heard evidence from 11 witnesses including the co-authors of the reports from the Anna Freud Centre, Dr McDowell, the mother and the Guardian. He also had a significant amount of written evidence including the reports referred to above. Judgment 43. The judgment sets out the parties\u2019 respective positions. At the start of the hearing, the Guardian proposed that W should remain at home with a supervision order \u201cbut was uncertain as to what recommendation [to make] in respect of M and wanted to hear the evidence\u201d. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Guardian\u2019s recommendation in respect of W remained the same. In respect of M, she now recommended that it was in his best interests for him to remain at home \u201cwith a package of support\u201d and a supervision order. 44. After dealing with the background history and the progress of the care proceedings, the judge dealt with the evidence at some length. I propose to refer only to some aspects of this. 45. The judge heard from three witnesses from the Anna Freud Centre. The effect of their evidence was that M needed \u201cbetter than average parenting\u201d because of his specific difficulties. In respect of W, there was concern that if she remained in the mother\u2019s care \u201cher development would be similar to\u201d M\u2019s. 46. The mother\u2019s ability to provide emotionally responsive parenting was considered to be limited as demonstrated, for example, by her not reading \u201ccues\u201d. Further, she was assessed as being unable to provide the better than average parenting required by M because of the \u201cvery significant difficulties in her own life and background\u201d. She \u201cneeds a long-term intensive therapeutic programme to address her difficulties and she needs to address her own feelings\u201d. Although one of these witnesses also said that these difficulties \u201cwill not be able to be addressed by therapy\u201d, the judge questioned this evidence because, as he put it, \u201cthis is what the Anna Freud Centre were actually expecting to do with her in the course of its work\u201d. It was also said that it would be difficult for the mother to engage in this type of therapy which had been shown to be \u201cthreatening for\u201d her. 47. This evidence also addressed the issue of separating the children. It \u201cwas a balance\u201d with each option having \u201cpros and cons\u201d. The children had a close relationship with each other and \u201cit was beneficial for them to remain in that close relationship\u201d. However, there was concern that M\u2019s difficulties might prevent W \u201cbonding with adults\u201d and \u201cthere were concerns about them being together in a foster placement and then having to be separated\u201d. 48. Dr McDowell \u201caccepted\u201d that the mother probably needed 18 months of therapy. She expressed concern about the mother\u2019s ability to engage with the proposed therapeutic treatment and to be consistent in her parenting; \u201ca lack of engagement and a lack of consistency would impact on M\u2019s development\u201d. She \u201cacknowledged there was considerable improvement in the care of the children\u201d, apparently adding, \u201cbut\u201d this was due to the structured school environment and the fact that the mother had been attending the Anna Freud Centre. The judge questioned the use of the word \u201cbut\u201d; in his view the improvement was because \u201cof what was being done now\u201d, including by the mother. 49. Dr McDowell said that children \u201cwill regress if moved from their parents and that would cause a challenge for the foster placement and would mean the foster carer needed considerable support\u201d. She was particularly concerned about the impact on M of removing him from the mother. It would cause a \u201cdramatic regression\u201d and she \u201ccould not say whether [this] would be short, medium or long-term\u201d. Separation from W would also \u201cbe a problem for M\u201d. \u201cIt would be very difficult for the foster carers to deal with\u201d. She was \u201ccritical\u201d of the proposed foster placement because it was with a single, inexperienced foster carer. M would need a lot of support and should remain at the same school. In addition she said that \u201cinter sibling contact was going to be very important\u201d. She was also concerned about the prospect of \u201cmultiple changes in placement which sometimes happen\u201d. 50. It was Dr McDowell\u2019s opinion that M should be placed in foster care but that, because of his need for routine and structure, there should be a four month transition to a foster placement. This was not what the Local Authority proposed (which was relatively immediate removal) and the judge expressed considerable doubts about its practicality and concern as to the likely effect on M. Indeed, in his view, such a prolonged transition period would be \u201cdisruptive\u201d and \u201cunsettling\u201d for M and would cause him immediately to regress. 51. The principal social worker had seen \u201cimprovements\u201d in the mother. She acknowledged \u201cthe positives and that the mother had worked incredibly hard to get there\u201d. She also acknowledged the improvement in M\u2019s \u201cpresentation\u201d. However, this was not the first time she had seen the mother make improvements before she \u201cstops engaging\u201d and \u201cthe children then suffer\u201d. Separating the children from the mother would cause the children distress and there would be \u201csome regression in M\u2019s behaviours and difficulties\u201d. But, in the social worker\u2019s opinion, this would be better for the children because of the \u201clongterm concerns\u201d if they remained in the mother\u2019s care. 52. The social worker also expressed concern about the mother being able to meet the children\u2019s needs in their timescales. This led the judge to refer to the fact that the therapeutic treatment proposed by the Anna Freud Centre and that proposed by Mr Bolton were of a similar duration. 53. Another social worker spoke about the \u201cvery strong bond between\u201d the children and also gave evidence of positives and concerns. There were \u201ca lot of positives in the mother\u2019s engagement and the children\u2019s presentation\u201d. There were concerns such as with the mother\u2019s relationship with the recovery service. 54. A witness from M\u2019s school said that they had a good relationship with the mother, they were working together and the mother was accepting advice. There had been \u201csignificant improvement in M\u2019s presentation, behaviour, enthusiasm for learning and engagements\u201d. 55. The judge did not gain much assistance from the \u201ctogether and apart assessment\u201d because it had been a paper exercise. However, he noted the difficulty with the recommendation that the children should \u201cmaintain a relationship through their childhoods\u201d if, as proposed by the Local Authority, they were separated and W was adopted. The judge commented that, if there was no contact, this would compound the negative impact on M because he would not only be separated from his sister but would also not have a relationship with her. 56. The judge sets out the mother\u2019s evidence at some length. The judge clearly formed a balanced assessment of the mother. He was concerned that she sometimes forgot that she had said something or denied that she had. This concerned him because there were a \u201clot of things she is going to have to accept and acknowledge which, at the moment, she might be denying\u201d. However, the mother was \u201con a course\u201d and could not be expected \u201cat this stage\u201d to accept all her difficulties. He considered it important that the mother acknowledged that she needed therapy; that she needed support with parenting and \u201cin attachment with M\u201d; and also that M needed therapy. 57. The Guardian\u2019s assessment remained that this was \u201ca very finely balanced case\u201d in respect of M. She recognised that M had \u201cvery significant needs\u201d and also that there were \u201crisks\u201d for both children if they remained with the mother. There was the risk that the mother might not pursue the therapy offered by Mr Bolton; that she might \u201cnot acknowledge what she had learned over the past few months\u201d; and that there would continue to be a poor relationship with the Local Authority. 58. It was, however, positive that \u201cthe mother engaged well [and] her general parenting was good to meet daily care needs\u201d. In her opinion, the mother \u201ccan be a very capable parent\u201d and the \u201cshifts that she had observed in the mother were significant\u201d. She pointed to the fact that her observations had been in the home environment while the EYPU\u2019s assessment had been in their environment. The Guardian agreed that the mother needed therapy and although that offered by the EYPU \u201cwas better \u2026 there are other options\u201d. 59. In addition, she considered that the mother and the children \u201cwere not in the same place they were in August 2018\u201d. This was for a variety of reasons including \u201cthe strategies that CAMHS had introduced\u201d. The \u201cimprovement\u201d in M was due to what the school had been doing and \u201cthe work that the mother has been doing\u201d. 60. The Guardian was clearly very concerned about the impact on M if he were removed from his mother: \u201cit would completely disrupt his current good progress\u201d and any \u201cdisruption and regression could be irreversible\u201d. She also pointed to the \u201crisk of breakdowns in the placement\u201d and the \u201cknock-on effect of how he was doing at school\u201d. The Guardian was also \u201cvery concerned\u201d about the placement proposed by the Local Authority. The foster carer had very limited experience and did not have experience of a child with M\u2019s needs; she \u201chad never had to commit to a long-term placement\u201d. 61. The Guardian did not consider that adoption was justified for W. She also considered that separating M and W \u201cwas a huge issue because they were very close \u2026 and it would be very difficult for them\u201d. \u201cAdoption and sibling contact would be very difficult; a very hard placement to find if there was going to be sibling contact\u201d. There would also be \u201cthe upset of W seeing that M was at home or seeing the mother\u201d. 62. I now turn to the judge\u2019s conclusions. 63. One of the main issues the judge had to address was whether the mother would be able to build on the progress she had made and engage with the proposed therapeutic treatment. The witnesses from the Anna Freud Centre and Dr McDowell questioned whether the mother would be able to engage with the treatment and be consistent. 64. The judge found that the mother \u201chas the capacity to change over time\u201d and that \u201cthings have started to change\u201d. What \u201cstruck (the judge) as very important\u201d was that the mother had engaged \u201cwell in the capacity to change assessment\u201d and that she \u201cnow understands the need for change and the need for therapy\u201d. This included the mother \u201caccepting and then having insight into something that hitherto she had not\u201d, namely that \u201cshe was the cause of his reactive attachment disorder\u201d. The judge considered this important in part because, in his experience of care cases, it was unusual for a parent to be assessed, as the mother had been by the EYPU, to have shown \u201cinsight and willingness to address the issues\u201d. 65. Taking into account the mother\u2019s capacity to change and the changes which had been made, the issue was, as the judge described it, whether the mother would genuinely engage in the treatment process. He also addressed the \u201cconcerns about consistency\u201d and, given the mother\u2019s withdrawal from the EYPU, whether she would \u201cwork with anyone\u201d. 66. The judge considered there were sufficient \u201cpositives\u201d to conclude that the mother was, \u201cwith support, capable of meeting\u201d the children\u2019s needs. At one point in his judgment he said that the mother would \u201cbe able to achieve\u201d the required changes. He also noted that the mother had been assessed as suitable to go on Mr Bolton\u2019s programme. It was inevitably going to \u201ctake time\u201d because the changes required were not going to happen \u201covernight\u201d. Further, it was to be expected that there would be \u201ctimes \u2026 when it goes off the rails\u201d because the process was \u201cnot going to be one \u2026 continually improving pathway\u201d. 67. The judge also recognised that \u201cit was not going to be easy for the mother to deal with\u201d the issues which needed to be addressed. She had to \u201cbe consistent in her approach to (the) children\u201d. She \u201calso needs to be able to ask for help\u201d. He accepted the Guardian\u2019s evidence that while she would have preferred the EYPU to undertake this work, \u201cMr Bolton does the same type of work\u201d. They were addressing the same issues and the latter would be \u201cas challenging\u201d as the former. He also addressed three \u201cproblems\u201d identified by the Anna Freud Centre with the treatment proposed by Mr Bolton. One of these was the duration of the therapy and its relationship with the \u201cchildren\u2019s timescales\u201d. The judge did not accept this because it seemed to him that the timescales for the therapy, whether that proposed by the EYPU or that with Mr Bolton, were \u201cthe same or similar\u201d. Another was the more limited nature of the treatment provided by Mr Bolton. The judge did not consider that the treatment offered by the EYPU was \u201cthe only way of doing it\u201d. There would need to be a different \u201cpackage\u201d with the social worker \u201censuring that everything is working together\u201d. 68. In order to emphasise the importance of the mother having the proposed long-term therapeutic treatment he made it clear to her that, if she did not properly participate, she would be \u201cback in front of me\u201d. 69. The judge also considered other changes which had taken place since the proceedings had started. He found that \u201cthings have started to change\u201d. The mother \u201chas improved her situation in respect of her ability to look after the children and progress is being made\u201d. This was \u201cfar better\u201d than had been \u201cthought might be the outcome at the start of the case\u201d. There had been dramatic improvement in M\u2019s \u201cpresentation at school\u201d and significant progress in his education. M\u2019s behaviour \u201chad improved considerably\u201d. This was due \u201cnot only [to] what has been done within the school environment to impose the structures and routines that M needed but also [to] the fact that the mother has been able to continue that structured programme when he is at home\u201d. 70. Additionally, the fact that there was \u201cno evidence of deterioration\u201d was an \u201cimportant point\u201d. This meant that the progress which had been made had been maintained although the mother was not currently having therapeutic treatment and there was no parenting support in place. There was \u201cstill a lot to do\u201d but, again in contrast to his experience in many other cases, there was a lot which was \u201ccapable of being done\u201d. 71. The judge agreed that the mother needed to have a good working relationship and to cooperate with the Local Authority which \u201cat times\u201d she had not. The judge directly addressed the mother and again made clear that she had to work with, \u201cto engage with\u201d, the \u201csocial work team\u201d. He considered that this would be assisted if there was a new team. 72. The judge analysed the potential consequences for the children of them remaining with the mother and of their being placed in foster care. It is plain that he recognised the risk that both M and W\u2019s emotional needs would not be met and, indeed, might be harmed if they remained in the care of the mother. He concluded, based on the progress which had been made and his assessment of the prospect of further progress being made, that the harm which, in particular M had suffered, could be \u201cameliorated and reduced\u201d. As referred to above, he decided that the mother was capable of making the required changes and that she was, \u201cwith support, capable of meeting\u201d the children\u2019s needs. 73. When analysing the alternative as proposed by the Local Authority, the judge noted that it \u201cwas accepted by all professional witnesses that if M was removed from his mother\u2019s care, it would be distressing for him, that he would regress, that he would return to and show the behaviours that he had in the past\u201d. He was particularly concerned by the prospect of a \u201cdramatic regression\u201d especially because it was not known \u201cwhether the regression was going to be short, medium or long-term\u201d. This evidence clearly, and understandably, concerned the judge greatly as he questioned, in stark terms, \u201cthe point of putting a child through that kind of regression if there is an alternative that can be put in place to help him\u201d. This also led him to question whether the evidence supported the conclusion that M\u2019s attachment difficulties would improve if he was placed in foster care. His conclusion was that \u201cI do not see the evidence base for that comment\u201d. He pointed to the agreed need for M to have therapy, which had been recommended for some time and which the judge considered \u201cshould start as soon as possible\u201d. 74. In respect of W, the judge clearly accepted the Guardian\u2019s evidence that removal from her mother\u2019s care was not justified. He recognised the risk that, if W remained in the care of the mother, she would develop emotional problems in the same way that M had. However, he pointed to the changes the mother had already made and referred to the \u201caim\u201d being to \u201cmake sure that the mother\u2019s development is such that\u201d she can provide W with appropriate parenting. 75. Another issue was the \u201cvery strong bond\u201d between the children and the detrimental emotional impact for them of this being fractured. The judge referred to what one of the EYPU witnesses had said, namely \u201cyou cannot underestimate the impact on both children of being separated from one another, let alone from their mother\u201d. 76. The judge went through the welfare checklist in summary at the end of his judgment. It was in summary because he had already addressed many of the relevant factors at some length during the course of his judgment. The points he identified were as follows: that the children would be distressed if they were removed from the mother and if they were separated; that the mother had the capacity to change, through therapeutic work; that there was \u201cconcern about the foster placement for M\u201d; that if M was removed from the mother there would be \u201cdramatic regression\u201d which the expert could \u201cnot say whether it would be short, medium or long-term\u201d with the Guardian saying there was a risk that \u201cthe regression would be irreversible\u201d; that M had \u201cparticularly\u201d suffered harm while W had been less affected; that the harm can be \u201cameliorated and reduced\u201d; and that the mother had made progress and, with support, was capable of meeting the children\u2019s needs. 77. The judge considered the orders which he could make and concluded that he should make supervision orders in respect of both children. Submissions 78. I am grateful to counsel for their submissions. 79. I have referred above (paragraph 4) to the way in which the Local Authority\u2019s argument in support of this appeal was phrased in the written submissions, namely \u201cessentially a challenge to the learned judge\u2019s welfare analysis and the disproportionate weight given to the child M\u2019s recent improved presentation over the weight of the expert evidence and the underlying unmet emotional needs of the children\u201d. 80. At the start of his submissions, Mr Pavlou helpfully summarised the main points he relied upon as being: (a) the lack of a sound evidential basis supporting the judge\u2019s conclusion that the mother had the capacity to change and would be consistent in making changes; (b) the lack of reasoning supporting the judge\u2019s rejection of the expert evidence relied on by the Local Authority; (c) a lack of reasoning, combined with the judge possibly misunderstanding the timescales involved, as to the time it would take for the mother to be able to provide the attuned parenting the children needed; and (d) the lack of any or any sufficient separate analysis in respect of W. 81. In respect of (a), Mr Pavlou did not challenge the judge\u2019s findings that the mother has the capacity to change or that there had been changes. However, he submitted that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the mother would or could be consistent in making the required changes including in respect of her parenting. In his submission, the judge appeared to have ignored the fact that the mother had withdrawn from the EYPU programme and the other evidence which also supported the conclusion that the mother would not be consistent. He further submitted that the judge did not deal with the fact that, although there had been improvements, the children\u2019s \u201cunderlying difficulties\u201d remained to be addressed. 82. As to (b), Mr Pavlou accepted, of course, that the judge was entitled to \u201cdepart from the experts\u2019 opinion\u201d but, he submitted, this had to be and was not sufficiently explained. He did not explain why he considered their evidence, that the mother could not provide the children with the parenting they need, was \u201cwrong\u201d. During his submissions, in response to an observation from the court, Mr Pavlou acknowledged that the judge was entitled to accept the Guardian\u2019s evidence as to the mother\u2019s parenting abilities but submitted that the judge had not said that he was accepting this evidence. 83. As to (c), Mr Pavlou suggested that there was a material difference in the timescales of the proposed therapies. The treatment with Mr Bolton would involve a \u201csubstantial delay\u201d before the therapy would start. 84. As to (d), Mr Pavlou submitted that the judge did not analyse W\u2019s position and explain why the order he made was in her best interests. 85. As Mr Pavlou developed his case, it became clear that his submissions were significantly based on a challenge to the adequacy of the judge\u2019s reasoning. For example, he submitted that the judge had failed to explain which evidence he had accepted and which he had rejected and why; that the judge had failed to state that he was weighing the risks to the children from remaining in the mother\u2019s care against the risks from removal; and that the judge had not referred to the law. 86. Ms Jones on behalf of the mother and Ms Ellis on behalf of the Guardian both submitted that the appeal should be dismissed. 87. Ms Jones submitted that the judge had clearly conducted a \u201cwelfare analysis\u201d based on all the evidence in the case. In her submission, the judge reached a decision which was proportionate and which he was entitled to make. In particular, he was entitled to take into account the improvements which the mother had made and the improvements in the children\u2019s situation. The judge had \u201creflected very carefully on the care the children were receiving at the time of the final hearing and would be likely to be receiving in the period whilst the mother has therapy\u201d. 88. Ms Ellis submitted that the judge\u2019s decision was supported by his assessment of the evidence and the reasons given in his judgment. In her submission, most of the grounds of appeal sought to argue that the judge had placed too much weight on certain factors and given insufficient weight or consideration to other factors. The Local Authority \u201cmakes complaint that the trial judge favoured the evidence that was against its case and did not favour the evidence that was in support of its case\u201d. Ms Ellis submitted that, \u201cin a case such as this, where the future welfare needs of the children are complicated and there was a plethora of evidence that all pointed in different directions\u201d, this court should be \u201cvery slow\u201d to interfere with the judge\u2019s decision. 89. She also submitted that none of the experts relied on by the Local Authority nor the social work team had given sufficient consideration to the likely harm to each of the children if the care plans were endorsed. This had been addressed by the Guardian who had concluded that all the available care options for the children were \u201cnot without risk to their overall emotional welfare\u201d. This was a difficult, \u201cfinely balanced\u201d, case and, in her submission, the judgment contains a sufficient analysis explaining why the judge \u201cpreferred the evidence in support of the children\u2019s welfare being best provided for by remaining with the mother over the evidence in support of the children being removed from her and each other\u201d. Determination 90. The challenge in this case is to the judge\u2019s welfare determination. Although one of the grounds of appeal contended that the judge failed to deal with the law, there can be no doubt that the judge was well aware of the welfare nature of the decision he was making. 91. The argument that the judge, when undertaking the welfare analysis, gave disproportionate weight to M\u2019s recent improved presentation over the weight of the expert evidence and the underlying unmet emotional needs of the children, addresses the \u201cthe evaluation and balancing\u201d exercises which are \u201ca matter for the trial judge\u201d: Baroness Hale of Richmond, at [12], In re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80. Having regard to the various factors involved in this case, as outlined above, it is, in my view, clear that there is no basis on which this court could conclude that the judge\u2019s determination was wrong because he gave too much weight or insufficient weight to the matters referred to by the Local Authority. The judge clearly took the expert evidence relied on by the Local Authority into account and also considered the emotional needs of each child and whether the mother would be able to meet them. His judgment makes clear that he balanced these factors when undertaking the welfare analysis and determining that the children should remain living with the mother. 92. I next turn to the submission that the evidence did not support \u201cthe judge\u2019s conclusion that the mother had the capacity to change and would be consistent in making changes\u201d. As referred to above, in the course of his oral submissions, Mr Pavlou accepted, rightly, that there was evidence supporting the judge\u2019s conclusion that the mother has the capacity to change the way in which she parents the children. 93. As to the latter part of this submission, I do not consider that the judge determined that the mother \u201cwould\u201d be consistent in making changes. The Local Authority can point to the judge saying, after referring to the need for the mother to undertake long-term therapy, to make consistent changes in her parenting of the children and to work with the Local Authority, that he is \u201csatisfied\u201d that the mother is \u201cgoing to be able to achieve those\u201d. However, it is clear from other parts of the judgment that the judge\u2019s analysis is not that straightforward. For example, the judge said that there were \u201cpositives about [the mother\u2019s] ability to change\u201d; that change was \u201ccapable of being done\u201d (my emphasis); and that although some progress had been made, there \u201cis still a lot to do\u201d. 94. The judge plainly took into account the concerns expressed as to the mother\u2019s ability to make changes in a consistent manner. This can be seen, for example, by his referring to the prospect, again to use his words, that matters might go \u201cdownhill\u201d or \u201coff the rails\u201d. Indeed, he made clear that he regarded this as the mother\u2019s \u201clast chance\u201d. To emphasise the point for the mother, the judge warned her that if, for example, she stopped engaging with the proposed treatment or the Local Authority the children\u2019s needs might well mean that they could no longer remain in her care. 95. It is clear to me that the judge reached a conclusion which was based on the evidence, not that the mother would make the required changes, but that there was a good prospect of her doing so, or certainly a sufficient prospect which supported the conclusion that the children should remain in her care. 96. The matters referred to in (b), (c) and (d) above are part of the broader submission that the judgment is insufficiently reasoned. Mr Pavlou relied on what Thorpe LJ said in Re B (Appeal; Lack of Reasons) [2003] 2 FLR 1035, at [11]: \u201cthe essential test is: does the judgment sufficiently explain what the judge has found and what he has concluded as well as the process of reasoning by which he arrived at his findings and then his conclusions\u201d. Another formulation is that provided by Peter Jackson LJ said in Re DAM (Children: Care Proceedings) [2018] 2 FLR 676, at [7], namely does the \u201cjudgment enable the reader, and above all the family itself, to know that the judge asked and answered the right questions\u201d. 97. I start with the general observation that, because the judgment in this case could be described as somewhat discursive in style, it is particularly important to read it as a whole. This is necessary because, for example, some of the judge\u2019s conclusions on the evidence and some of the reasons for his ultimate determination are dispersed throughout the judgment. 98. In my view, it is not difficult to see from the judgment what findings the judge made and why he decided that it was in the children\u2019s best interests to remain in the care of their mother. It was, clearly, a finely balanced case with the judge having to balance the potential welfare risks to the children of remaining with the mother and of being removed with the potential benefits of each course. 99. Despite Mr Pavlou\u2019s submission, it is clear to me that, in undertaking his welfare analysis, the judge accepted the Guardian\u2019s evidence. This evidence was based on direct observations of the family which were, in my experience, more extensive and detailed than in many if not most other care cases. Her evidence was also supported by a thorough and careful welfare analysis. 100. As referred to above, the judge also clearly took into account the evidence from the EYPU and the social workers but, as submitted by Ms Ellis, he was entitled to conclude, as he clearly did, that they had given insufficient consideration to the likely harm to each of the children if they were removed from the mother and the proposed care plans were endorsed. It is in my view also clear that the judge did not misunderstand the timescales involved. He was aware of the duration of the proposed therapy and, as referred to above, based his determination on the progress which had been made and his assessment of the progress which could be made. 101. In conclusion, I do not consider that the judge\u2019s welfare analysis was deficient or that the reasons for his decision are insufficiently expressed in the judgment. There were welfare risks with each proposed option and a critical part of the judge\u2019s analysis was to decide which option presented the least risk. The judge considered the position in respect of each of the children. He clearly decided, in particular in respect of M, that remaining with the mother presented the lesser risk of harm. He considered that there were sufficient \u201cpositives\u201d including that, with support, the mother was capable of meeting each of the children\u2019s needs. In summary, I concluded that the appeal should be dismissed because the judge reached a decision which was open to him on the evidence and which was sufficiently reasoned. Lord Justice Dingemans: 102. I agree. Lord Justice Underhill: 103.I also agree.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lord Justice Moylan: Introduction: 1. The London Borough of Hackney appeals from a supervision order made at the conclusion of care proceedings by His Honour Judge Oliver on 1st July 2019. The case concerns two children, M now aged 7 and W now aged 3. 2. At this hearing the Local Authority was represented by Mr Pavlou; the mother by…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7943],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[45029],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[8244,7622,11553,7621,8047],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-754476","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-civil-division","kji_year-45029","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-children","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-guardian","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-mother","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nB (Children) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B (Children)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lord Justice Moylan: Introduction: 1. The London Borough of Hackney appeals from a supervision order made at the conclusion of care proceedings by His Honour Judge Oliver on 1st July 2019. The case concerns two children, M now aged 7 and W now aged 3. 2. At this hearing the Local Authority was represented by Mr Pavlou; the mother by...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"44 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-children\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-children\\\/\",\"name\":\"B (Children) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-29T12:18:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-children\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-children\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-children\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"B (Children)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B (Children) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"B (Children)","og_description":"Lord Justice Moylan: Introduction: 1. The London Borough of Hackney appeals from a supervision order made at the conclusion of care proceedings by His Honour Judge Oliver on 1st July 2019. The case concerns two children, M now aged 7 and W now aged 3. 2. At this hearing the Local Authority was represented by Mr Pavlou; the mother by...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"44 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/","name":"B (Children) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-29T12:18:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-children\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"B (Children)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/754476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=754476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=754476"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=754476"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=754476"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=754476"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=754476"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=754476"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=754476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}