The Local Authority v The Mother [2026] EWFC 166 (B): Resolutions assessment refused and special guardianship order made in non-accidental injury proceedings

Her Honour Judge Hesford has made a Special Guardianship Order in favour of a child's paternal grandparents in final welfare proceedings concerning a very young boy, designated A, having refused the parents' application for a Resolutions-style assessment. The judgement, delivered on 26 June 2026 in the Family Court at Chester and Crewe, is reported at [2026] EWFC 166 (B) and should be read alongside the earlier fact-finding judgement at [2026] EWFC 122 (B).

In that earlier judgement, the court made detailed findings that A had sustained inflicted non-accidental injuries, including two fractured ribs and multiple areas of bruising, at the age of a few weeks. The injuries were attributed to the mother. The father was found to have failed to take appropriate protective action and both parents had failed to seek timely medical attention. The court also found a pattern of serious and persistent dishonesty, including the concealment of the true nature of their ongoing relationship, alongside concerns about domestic abuse and the mother's mental health.

At the welfare stage, both parents sought rehabilitation of A to their joint care and applied for a Resolutions or AAA (Assessment, Analysis and Achievement) assessment to be conducted in the community. The Resolutions model is specifically designed for cases where serious findings have been made but remain denied, aiming to develop an externally monitored safety framework without requiring admission of responsibility. The Local Authority and the child's Guardian opposed the application, supporting instead a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the paternal grandparents with whom A had lived since the start of proceedings.

HHJ Hesford refused the assessment application. Applying the necessity test under section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014, she held that a further assessment was not necessary to resolve the proceedings justly. The court already possessed a clear and substantial body of evidence, the risks were established rather than speculative, and there was no realistic prospect of the assessment producing a different outcome. Critically, both parents continued to lack meaningful insight: the mother maintained her denial of responsibility, whilst the father's acceptance of the findings was characterised as qualified and forensic in nature rather than reflecting genuine internalisation. The court found that his formulation, accepting only that the mother was the perpetrator "based on the evidence and how it was presented in court", was revealing of continued alignment with the mother rather than a true recognition of her responsibility.

The court also identified serious practical concerns with the proposed safety framework, noting that key proposed supervisors had been oblivious to significant difficulties within the household during the very period A sustained his injuries. The likely total delay of 70 to 75 weeks, set against A's acute need for permanence at one year of age, weighed heavily against the application. The judge conducted an express Article 8 proportionality analysis and concluded that refusal was a justified and proportionate interference with the parents' rights.

A Special Guardianship Order was made in favour of the paternal grandparents, with whom A had formed secure primary attachments. The court endorsed contact at a minimum of monthly, supervised and in a structured setting, whilst declining to make a formal contact order. HHJ Hesford expressed confidence that the special guardians would promote appropriate contact without the need for a court order, consistent with the no-order principle. Progression to unsupervised contact was stated to be contingent upon both parents demonstrating clear acceptance of the findings and genuine, evidenced behavioural change.

The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 166 (B). Her Honour Judge Hesford. Family Court at Chester and Crewe. 26 June 2026. Daniel Currie for the applicant local authority. Kathryn Hughes (instructed by Stephensons) for the first respondent. Jonathan Buchan (instructed by Farleys) for the second respondent. Megan Gilchrist (instructed by Paul Crowley) for the child via his Guardian.