A Father v Middlesbrough Council & Ors

Dr Umila Roy (instructed by Freer Askew Bunting) for the Applicant Henry Trory (instructed by Middlesbrough Council) for the First Respondent Jennie Smith (instructed by TBI Law) for the Second Respondent Scott Smith (instructed by Kathy Webb and Co.) for the Third and Fourth Respondents Julianne Askins (Appleby Hope and Matthes Solicitors) for the Fifth Respondent The Sixth Respondent in person Hearing dates: 6th to 8th and 18th December 2023 ____________________

ii) V should live under the care of Z, supported by X, Y and possibly other family members;

Option (iii) would involve the removal of V from her family. V is under a care order and has already been removed from her parents into the care of her paternal grandparents. Nevertheless, in my judgment, it is appropriate to adopt the approach that, whilst my paramount consideration is V's best interests, I should only approve the removal of V from the family if that meets the test of necessity.

It was noted that the school had a generally positive relationship with X whom it described as V's main carer, but less so with Y. There was also concern about a number of others who were involved in dropping V off and picking her up from school including A who is Y's son and was then a teenager. V's attendance was at about 94%.

i) Monthly contact with her mother and sister, and monthly contact with her father: such contact as is currently supervised should continue to be supervised unless and until the Local Authority consider it appropriate to move to unsupervised contact. If the father is agreeable, contact with X and Y could take place at the same time as contact with him, on every other occasion.