By Tess Reidy
Back in May, I reported on the case of three brothers—now aged seven, eleven and thirteen—who had spent over two years in foster care after being removed from their mother’s care in 2023. The removal came after a mental health crisis during the COVID pandemic. She was given the impression that the boys would return home that same year. Instead, they remained in care.
The children’s father was not contactable at the last hearing and plays no active role in their lives. All professionals involved agreed that the mother should regain custody, and the judge commended the significant progress she had made in addressing her mental health challenges. They praised the immense work she had undertaken. In the background to this, many questions had remained unanswered. For instance, how someone who is employed as a nursery assistant, taking care of other children, could be deemed unsuitable to care for her own children.
But more than two months on, at a fresh hearing in early August, the mood in court has shifted. The sense of warmth and resolution from May, when the judge smiled as the plan for reunification was outlined and the parties sat around a table, has been replaced by a more formal and procedural atmosphere.
After a 20-minute delay to the start of proceedings, whilst the parties discuss matters outside of the courtroom, everyone enters the room. There are loose ends to tie up. The local authority had previously raised concerns about excessive alcohol use and ordered six months of hair strand testing. The mother contested this, and the results have since come back clear.
A mental health update from the mother’s GP and community health team was also due. But, according to the mother’s barrister, that short report never materialised. “He’s on annual leave,” the barrister tells the court. “And there have been funding issues.” The May court order omitted any mention of public funding, meaning the doctor could not be paid. An extension has now been requested, but two months have passed.
There are further delays in appointing a psychiatrist and an independent social worker. A face-to-face psychiatric assessment is needed, her barrister argues, as a previous online session had proved inadequate. A new social worker is finally named, after several changes in the case. Each previous social worker has apparently relied on reports written by their predecessor, a patchwork of inherited information. The result has extended well beyond the original recommendation by the social worker, says the mother’s barrister. “It needs to be accurate.” There is now agreement across parties that a fresh set of eyes is needed. It is agreed by all that this social worker is a good fit for this particular case and is known to the court. New deadlines are set for reports and assessments, stretching into the coming weeks and months.
Meanwhile, the boys are still in foster care. Weekly overnight contact with their mother has started from 12:30 Saturday to 4:30 Sunday. It has gone well so far, though only one visit has taken place. The mother’s barrister suggests expanding contact to include Fridays and Mondays, giving the family a more meaningful stretch of time together. The children, it is acknowledged, are finding this process frustrating. The social worker is trying to help them understand that this will take time. But behind the professional language, the weight of that time is heavy.
At the last hearing, the father was discussed. No one knew where he was living, and it was decided that attempts should be made via the Department for Work and Pensions to locate him and serve notice of the proceedings. This time, there is no mention of him or how those attempts played out.
One of the most poignant moments in court comes when the mother’s barrister addresses the broader context. She shares the mother’s deep frustration at the “drift” and the inertia that has marked the last few months and years. She wants the boys returned to her care and is grateful things are now moving forward, but she is “disappointed”. Watching the proceedings unfold again today, you can see why. Every step forward is dependent on someone’s availability, a report being filed, funding getting approved, and a court date being secured. A new hearing is scheduled for late November, and for now, the case is adjourned.
Gone are the smiles from the last hearing. The court is still edging towards returning the boys home. The direction is right, but the pace is slow. And while the system moves, life moves on too: the eldest boy is entering his teenage years, and the younger two are spending more of their early childhood away from home.
The professionals agree on the goal. The mother is ready. The children are waiting. But for now, the drift continues.
Published on 14 August 2025
For the previous posts, please visit our main family court blog page
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