The Local Authority and C & D. HHJ Parker, Liverpool Family Court, 9th April 2026.
Application for ISW assessment - refused - previous recent proceedings - many recent assessments - detailed consideration of s13 Children & Family Act 2013 and overriding objective in FPR at para 1.1.
The LA applied for an ICO re a child [A] currently in foster care (age redacted), with a plan for adoption. M made an application for a parenting assessment by an ISW.
M and F had a total of 8 children, together or with another partner.
Broadly speaking the LA concerns were:
- inability to recognise risk
- low cognitive functioning impacting M’s ability to provide basic care for the child.
Her other children were subject to care orders, with many assessments having been made in previous proceedings as recent as October 2025.
The mothers application was based on:
- a significant change in her (and F’s) circumstances since E (previous chid) was placed for adoption
- she could meet A’s needs together with support of F, A being a joint and sole focus of M and F
- Being eager to work with the LA
- take classes, join groups or undertake one-to-one work throughout A's childhood.
Her Counsel informed the court:
- M demonstrated emotionalwarmth, love and affection for A's older brother, E
- she fully engaged with the LocalAuthority
- willing to do anything that was asked of her
- attended all contacts, demonstrating commitment
- no issue with substance or alcohol misuse.
- in a relationship with the father since 2024.
The judge referred to the judgment of Knowles J in Nottinghamshire v XX & YY [2022] EWFC 10, in which Knowles J, gave guidance in dealing with cases where a parent has a learning disability as follows:
(1) The good practice guidance of working with parents with a learning disability should be an essential part of the continuation of training for social workers and managers.
(2) There should be timely referrals to Adult Social Care for a parent with learning difficulties without a very lengthy gap after a referral.
(3) Parents with learning difficulties involved with Children's Social Care, where a child is on a child protection plan, should have their own advocate as a priority. A referral for that service should be made as soon as practicable.
(4) The support available to a parent with learning difficulties should be distilled into a simple document identifying what is available, how often it is available, timescales for its availability and who is responsible for its delivery. Such a document should be shared with the Children's Social Care if involved and discussed with the parent in the presence of their advocate.
The judge then referred to previous proceedings stating that the parents were unable to provide good/safe enough child care, and the risks could not be managed without intensive lifelong professional supervision. Several cognitive assessments had been completed with M, PAMS assessments and three ParentAssess assessments as recently as late as 2025. All concluded negatively. In the ParentAssess addendum statement completed in 2025 as part of previous proceedings, M is said to have been:-
"…offered and engaged with intensive levels of parenting support over several years of Social Care involvement. It is evident that despite C's best evidence to improve and develop her parenting abilities, she is unable to meet the basic care needs of a child or children in her care.”
The court was invited to consider:
- S 13 of C & FA 2014, especially s 13(7)
- the final report of the PublicLaw Working Group and, in particular, paragraph 168,
- guidance given by the President on the use of experts
- the overriding objective in FPR at para 1.1.
The judge noted that :
- F did not exercise contact with [A] because he was using it as a protest at his limited contact with another child !
- The parents had undertaken work with the Triple P parenting courses, New Beginnings, SteppingStones and the Chrysalis Centre.
- Cognitive assessments of both parents showed M’s Full Scale IQ was in the range of 65 to 73 and F’s 76 to 72 sic [82 probably].
The ParentAssess assessment by the ISW of 24 June 2025 concluded:-
‘I have considered the option of the children remaining with C and D together or separately, and it is my view that C and D do not have the ability to meet the changing needs over the next 18 years, together or apart’.
The CG supported the LA.
The judge recited parts of s13 of C & FA 2014 with detailed consideration of each revenant part [which I will spare myself the labour of repeating in this short article, but ref is para 66 in Bailii report]
The judge’s concluding remarks included:
- there is a huge amount of assessment evidence in respect of the parents.
- he struggled to see why it was necessary and proportionate
- there were static risks in terms of the inability of the parents to provide good, safe care, and to mitigate the impact of that inability, it would require lifelong, professional supervision of their care.
- it would be an unnecessary step because of the amount of evidence.
The judge then considered in detail the provisions of FPR 1.1 [which I guide you to research at para 76 Bailii]
Finally at para 86 Bailii he said:-
‘I am not satisfied that further expert evidence in the form of an ISW assessment and parenting assessment of either or both of the parents is justified in this case. It is not necessary to enable me to deal with proceedings justly’.
It is worth remembering that if you are opposing an application for an ISW report, that your opposition may be strengthened by inviting the judge to consider FPR 1.1, depending of course on the circumstances of each case. Happy courting!
