By Tess Reidy
This is the case of a young boy, we’ll call him Barney, who spent the first five years of his life living with his mother, his father allegedly moving in and out of the family home. Earlier this year, he was removed from her care amid concerns about her mental health and abduction risks.
We are in court today as the father was not present at the last hearing due to having been stopped by the police and arrested after a positive drug swipe for cocaine on his way to court. He could not attend, and as a result, an interim child arrangement was not made. Instead, an order was put in place for the child to return to school. A later drugs test of the father showed amphetamines, ketamine, cocaine use for several days and excessive alcohol consumption.
The mother contests the allegations against her and says, following a deterioration in mental health in December, she has addressed these issues. The mother has another child, who is a teenager now, but was recently the subject of a Child Arrangements application and is currently living with the father.
Barney now lives with his dad and his paternal grandparents. The mother has made allegations in respect of substance abuse, driving under the influence, sexual assault, physical assault and controlling and coercive behaviour against the father. The mother says there is currently no fixed plan for how often Barney has supervised contact with her and she says the father’s suggested three hours a week are not reliably taking place.
The hearing begins on an uneasy note. The father’s barrister objects to the presence of a reporter, saying his client feels “uncomfortable and awkward”. From his perspective, there are concerns about the mother sharing information on social media and making covert recordings in the past. The local authority supports the objection. There is a pause while discussions take place outside the courtroom.
Ultimately, the judge decides the hearing should remain open. Exclusions of the press can be necessary to protect the interests of a child involved in the proceedings, for the safety or protection of a party, a witness, or someone connected with them, or for the orderly conduct of the proceedings. But in this case, the threshold isn’t met.
The hearing continues.The father attends remotely with his solicitor. The mother sits in court with her barrister. There is agreement across all parties that both parents will undergo hair strand testing and the mother agrees to a psychological assessment of her. Whether there should be a fact-finding hearing to determine the truth of disputed allegations remains unresolved, though the mother is keen for one.
The case is described repeatedly as complex. The judge refers to “a substantial number of issues that one parent makes against the other”. There are allegations of domestic abuse from the mother against the father, claims of recent drug use by the father, concerns about abduction after the mother withheld Barney for three days after a contact visit and ongoing questions around the mother’s mental health. The father has also accused the mother of drug use. Police have been involved numerous times.
There is a lot to cover but the mother’s barrister seems to focus on the most pressing issues. He raises what he describes as ongoing safeguarding concerns: reports of the child not being properly belted in a car, allegations of drug driving and speeding, alongside broader allegations about substance use. Despite this, he notes, Barney remains in his father’s care. He argues that the social worker’s report fails to fully account for the risks posed by the father, focusing instead on the mother’s mental health. His client, he says, believes Barney should live with her, with contact arrangements for the father. The father takes the opposite view.
The local authority pushes back. Concerns about the father’s drug use, their solicitor says, have not been minimised. They point to the presence of the grandparents in the household as a stabilising factor. They are described as “protective”.
But when the risks involve driving speed, drugs and safety, the limits of that protection are apparent.
The judge is careful not to be drawn into conclusions. “I am aware of the issues raised by both parents,” he says. “They are polar opposite.” For now, no final decision is made. The possibility of a fact-finding hearing remains open, but not yet certain. “We need more data,” he adds.
A further hearing is listed in around six weeks. Hair strand testing for both parents will take place before then. Statements will be filed. The judge acknowledges the impact of time passing with a reference to “the emotional strain of separation” on Barney. He asks that all parties attend court in person next time, including the father.
For the mother, it is a small shift, but a shift nonetheless. Not long ago, she was caring for what she describes as her “happy, silly, imaginative boy,” who was “an absolute chatterbox”. Now, she says, he seems quieter, older than his years, and always “trying to be brave”.
She believes the grandparents are driving the current arrangement. That they, more than the father, want Barney to remain where he is. She questions whether the father wants to be a full time parent at all. It’s her view of the situation, one among many in a case defined by competing accounts.
What is clear is that Barney’s future is unsettled. As the adults argue, and the system works its way through process and proof, he waits. His life, for now, suspended between possibilities. His mother wants him home. A few hours a week of supervised contact is not enough for her and so this fight continues.
Published 25 May 2026.
If you’re a journalist or legal blogger and are interested in being paid to contribute to our Family Court blog please email info@righttoequality.org