My children went into care last June through their mother's behaviour. Because of the emotional toll on my children the PLO process had started but was bypassed by a violent act by the mother where she was arrested and the children placed in care.
I am the non-fault parent and I declined to look after the children. Due to ongoing parental alienation and some tales that have since come to light my children didn't want to see me and I considered myself in a vulnerable situation where the children have a strong allegiance with their mother.
In July the guardian recommended that the parents liaise with the foster carers. Their social worker said that was never going to happen. Recently I have had a few brief conversations with them.
The mother failed a parenting assessment and a psychologist recommended the children do not go back in the care of their mother. Without a radical change in her behaviour the situation is not going to change.
I had a glowing parenting assessment with the report circulated to all parties at the beginning of November.
7 months later I still do not have fully unsupervised time with my children. If a social worker says jump I ask how high.
It was implied that if I had agreed to looking after the children full time then there would be no issue with unsupervised time. In short I feel punished.
Recently there was a event where the social worker forbade me to attend. My sense this was a control thing on the part of the local authority. It transpired that the children's allegiance to their mother is so strong they didn't want me to attend if their mother wasn't allowed to and preferred to attend with just their carers.
I feel my solicitor is of little use, but see no point in changing if the local authority's policy is the norm.
I would appreciate some insight as I don't seem to be moving forward despite jumping through the hoops placed before me, where the finish line moves ever further away as I seemingly approach it.
Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Hi VD2ER,
what you’re describing is far more common than people realise, and it’s deeply demoralising when you’re the non-fault parent doing everything right.
I’ll break this down clearly and honestly.
First , there is no fixed “policy” that says you must be kept supervised in your situation
Local authorities often talk as though there is a policy, but in reality There is no statute, regulation, or national guidance that says a parent with a positive parenting assessment must remain supervised after 7 months. Supervision is meant to be risk-led and proportionate, not indefinite or punitive. Once a parent has been assessed as safe, supervision should reduce progressively, unless there is evidence of risk.
So if you’re asking “is this just the norm?”
No.
What you’re experiencing is not policy, it’s practice drift.
What is actually happening here (and why it feels like punishment)
You’ve identified the core problem yourself already
“It was implied that if I had agreed to look after the children full time then there would be no issue with unsupervised time.” That tells you everything.
What’s happening is this: You were assessed as safe But you declined immediate full-time care (for valid reasons: alienation, emotional vulnerability, the children’s alignment with their mother) . The local authority has quietly linked unsupervised contact to compliance with their preferred plan, not to risk. That is not lawful decision-making, It’s leverage.
Unsupervised contact is being used as a reward mechanism, not a safeguarding measure.
The allegiance issue is central , and professionals know it
This part of your post is very important:
“The children’s allegiance to their mother is so strong they didn’t want me to attend if their mother wasn’t allowed to.”
That is a classic presentation of loyalty conflict
emotional alignment
and, potentially, alienation dynamics
And here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Professionals often avoid challenging this directly because it’s emotionally complex, it risks destabilising placements, and it requires careful, skilled intervention.
So instead of addressing the allegiance, they keep contact controlled, minimise friction, and quietly prioritise “emotional containment” over your progression.
That protects the system, not your relationship with your children.
Why your solicitor feels useless (and you’re probably right)
Most solicitors:
wait for the local authority to move first,
assume gradual progression will “just happen,”
and are reluctant to challenge contact arrangements unless there’s a court timetable forcing the issue.
But nothing forces change unless someone pushes.
Right now, there is no pressure on the LA to move you forward — so they don’t.
What should be happening by now
Given:
a glowing parenting assessment,
no safeguarding concerns about you,
and 7 months of compliance,
you would normally expect:
clear written reasons for any ongoing supervision,
a step-down plan with dates,
or a move to defined unsupervised contact (even if not overnight).
The absence of this is not accidental.
What you can do next (practical and proportionate)
You don’t need to “jump higher”, you need clarity and accountability.
1. Ask for the legal basis in writing
You (or your solicitor) should ask the social worker and team manager:
What specific risk justifies continued supervision?
How does that risk relate to me, not the mother?
What evidence shows unsupervised time would cause harm?
If they can’t answer that clearly, supervision cannot be justified.
2. Ask for a written progression plan
Request a simple document setting out:
what needs to be demonstrated,
over what timescale,
and what unsupervised contact will follow.
If there is no pathway, you are being stalled.
3. Consider whether court is now the lever
If the local authority will not move:
a court application for defined contact or variation may be the only way to stop drift.
Judges are far less tolerant of indefinite supervision when a parent is assessed as safe.
You don’t need to be confrontational, just clear that stagnation is no longer acceptable.
------
For full transparency, I am not an official adviser. I am a parent with lived experience of the family court system, offering strategic guidance. Always consult with a solicitor regarding ongoing court proceedings..
what you’re describing is far more common than people realise, and it’s deeply demoralising when you’re the non-fault parent doing everything right.
I’ll break this down clearly and honestly.
First , there is no fixed “policy” that says you must be kept supervised in your situation
Local authorities often talk as though there is a policy, but in reality There is no statute, regulation, or national guidance that says a parent with a positive parenting assessment must remain supervised after 7 months. Supervision is meant to be risk-led and proportionate, not indefinite or punitive. Once a parent has been assessed as safe, supervision should reduce progressively, unless there is evidence of risk.
So if you’re asking “is this just the norm?”
No.
What you’re experiencing is not policy, it’s practice drift.
What is actually happening here (and why it feels like punishment)
You’ve identified the core problem yourself already
“It was implied that if I had agreed to look after the children full time then there would be no issue with unsupervised time.” That tells you everything.
What’s happening is this: You were assessed as safe But you declined immediate full-time care (for valid reasons: alienation, emotional vulnerability, the children’s alignment with their mother) . The local authority has quietly linked unsupervised contact to compliance with their preferred plan, not to risk. That is not lawful decision-making, It’s leverage.
Unsupervised contact is being used as a reward mechanism, not a safeguarding measure.
The allegiance issue is central , and professionals know it
This part of your post is very important:
“The children’s allegiance to their mother is so strong they didn’t want me to attend if their mother wasn’t allowed to.”
That is a classic presentation of loyalty conflict
emotional alignment
and, potentially, alienation dynamics
And here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Professionals often avoid challenging this directly because it’s emotionally complex, it risks destabilising placements, and it requires careful, skilled intervention.
So instead of addressing the allegiance, they keep contact controlled, minimise friction, and quietly prioritise “emotional containment” over your progression.
That protects the system, not your relationship with your children.
Why your solicitor feels useless (and you’re probably right)
Most solicitors:
wait for the local authority to move first,
assume gradual progression will “just happen,”
and are reluctant to challenge contact arrangements unless there’s a court timetable forcing the issue.
But nothing forces change unless someone pushes.
Right now, there is no pressure on the LA to move you forward — so they don’t.
What should be happening by now
Given:
a glowing parenting assessment,
no safeguarding concerns about you,
and 7 months of compliance,
you would normally expect:
clear written reasons for any ongoing supervision,
a step-down plan with dates,
or a move to defined unsupervised contact (even if not overnight).
The absence of this is not accidental.
What you can do next (practical and proportionate)
You don’t need to “jump higher”, you need clarity and accountability.
1. Ask for the legal basis in writing
You (or your solicitor) should ask the social worker and team manager:
What specific risk justifies continued supervision?
How does that risk relate to me, not the mother?
What evidence shows unsupervised time would cause harm?
If they can’t answer that clearly, supervision cannot be justified.
2. Ask for a written progression plan
Request a simple document setting out:
what needs to be demonstrated,
over what timescale,
and what unsupervised contact will follow.
If there is no pathway, you are being stalled.
3. Consider whether court is now the lever
If the local authority will not move:
a court application for defined contact or variation may be the only way to stop drift.
Judges are far less tolerant of indefinite supervision when a parent is assessed as safe.
You don’t need to be confrontational, just clear that stagnation is no longer acceptable.
------
For full transparency, I am not an official adviser. I am a parent with lived experience of the family court system, offering strategic guidance. Always consult with a solicitor regarding ongoing court proceedings..
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Many thanks for the reply.
I feel I have gone from a narcissistic person to a narcissistic entity. I saw more of the children when they lived with their mother.
I have another meeting soon where I suspect I will be made to feel grateful for moving forward.
I feel I have gone from a narcissistic person to a narcissistic entity. I saw more of the children when they lived with their mother.
I have another meeting soon where I suspect I will be made to feel grateful for moving forward.
-
Suzie, FRG Adviser
- Posts: 4873
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:57 pm
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Dear VD2ER,
Welcome to the parents’ forum and thank you for your post. My name is Suzie and I am the online adviser for Family Rights Group. I hope that the following advice and information is helpful. You can click on the hyperlinks to take you to more advice and information on our website.
I am sorry to hear about this difficult situation and from what you say it seems that you feel that things are not moving forward as you would like, particularly in regard to unsupervised contact. From what you have said I am presuming that care proceedings are still ongoing? (If this is not correct then please do post again to clarify).
I would suggest taking the following steps:
1) Discuss your wish for fully unsupervised contact with your children’s independent reviewing officer (IRO). They are responsible for overseeing your children’s care plan which should clearly outline the contact arrangements that the children have with you, as well as a plan for progression. You do not have to wait until the next looked after child review to have this discussion. You can find some tips about discussing this with the IRO on our website HERE. We also have information on our website HERE about the government statutory guidance regarding contact between looked after children and their parents; you could use some of the information to highlight the obligations children’s services have towards your children.
2) If you have done the above (and I am assuming that you have had these discussions already with the social worker and/or their manager) then I would suggest that you ask your solicitor to raise this in court. I am unclear at what point the care proceedings are at, and whether children’s services or the guardian are recommending that the children return to your care given that you had a positive parenting assessment? Either way, if the recommendation is that the children return to your care then there should be a clear plan for this which would include unsupervised contact, or if the recommendation is that they stay in foster care then there should be a clear rationale as to why this is in the children’s best interests (particularly given that you have had a positive parenting assessment). Of course, your solicitor can then challenge this in court on your behalf.
From what you have said it sounds like you do not find your solicitor helpful. I’m sorry to hear this. Generally, changing your solicitor during care proceedings is not advisable as it adds to the delay and is a complicated process due to legal aid payments. I would suggest you clearly put in writing what you wish your solicitor to raise at the next court hearing. We have a guide to working with a solicitor which you can find HERE – it contains some useful guidance about how to get the best out of working with a solicitor.
You say that there was an event that you were not allowed to attend. The reason for this was because your children did not want you to attend if their mother was not also allowed to attend. This must have been difficult for you and I can understand your frustrations at not being able to attend. It is important to consider though that the social worker must take account of the children’s wishes and feelings and they must consider what the impact would be if they disregarded what the children were saying. You don’t say how old your children are, but the older the are the more weight will be given to their wishes and feelings. The social worker must make a decision in the best interests of the children and then communicate their rationale to you. If you are unhappy with their rationale then you can raise this with their manager and the IRO, or your solicitor can raise the issue in court if this would be helpful.
I hope that this is of some help. Please post again if you have any further queries or you can call our free, confidential adviceline on 0808 801 0366 (Monday to Friday, 9:30am – 3pm). We also have a webchat which is currently open on Monday and Thursday afternoons.
Best wishes,
Suzie
Family Rights Group Adviser
Welcome to the parents’ forum and thank you for your post. My name is Suzie and I am the online adviser for Family Rights Group. I hope that the following advice and information is helpful. You can click on the hyperlinks to take you to more advice and information on our website.
I am sorry to hear about this difficult situation and from what you say it seems that you feel that things are not moving forward as you would like, particularly in regard to unsupervised contact. From what you have said I am presuming that care proceedings are still ongoing? (If this is not correct then please do post again to clarify).
I would suggest taking the following steps:
1) Discuss your wish for fully unsupervised contact with your children’s independent reviewing officer (IRO). They are responsible for overseeing your children’s care plan which should clearly outline the contact arrangements that the children have with you, as well as a plan for progression. You do not have to wait until the next looked after child review to have this discussion. You can find some tips about discussing this with the IRO on our website HERE. We also have information on our website HERE about the government statutory guidance regarding contact between looked after children and their parents; you could use some of the information to highlight the obligations children’s services have towards your children.
2) If you have done the above (and I am assuming that you have had these discussions already with the social worker and/or their manager) then I would suggest that you ask your solicitor to raise this in court. I am unclear at what point the care proceedings are at, and whether children’s services or the guardian are recommending that the children return to your care given that you had a positive parenting assessment? Either way, if the recommendation is that the children return to your care then there should be a clear plan for this which would include unsupervised contact, or if the recommendation is that they stay in foster care then there should be a clear rationale as to why this is in the children’s best interests (particularly given that you have had a positive parenting assessment). Of course, your solicitor can then challenge this in court on your behalf.
From what you have said it sounds like you do not find your solicitor helpful. I’m sorry to hear this. Generally, changing your solicitor during care proceedings is not advisable as it adds to the delay and is a complicated process due to legal aid payments. I would suggest you clearly put in writing what you wish your solicitor to raise at the next court hearing. We have a guide to working with a solicitor which you can find HERE – it contains some useful guidance about how to get the best out of working with a solicitor.
You say that there was an event that you were not allowed to attend. The reason for this was because your children did not want you to attend if their mother was not also allowed to attend. This must have been difficult for you and I can understand your frustrations at not being able to attend. It is important to consider though that the social worker must take account of the children’s wishes and feelings and they must consider what the impact would be if they disregarded what the children were saying. You don’t say how old your children are, but the older the are the more weight will be given to their wishes and feelings. The social worker must make a decision in the best interests of the children and then communicate their rationale to you. If you are unhappy with their rationale then you can raise this with their manager and the IRO, or your solicitor can raise the issue in court if this would be helpful.
I hope that this is of some help. Please post again if you have any further queries or you can call our free, confidential adviceline on 0808 801 0366 (Monday to Friday, 9:30am – 3pm). We also have a webchat which is currently open on Monday and Thursday afternoons.
Best wishes,
Suzie
Family Rights Group Adviser
Do you have 3 minutes to complete our evaluation form ? We would value your feedback on the parents’ forum.
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Many thanks for your reply. The proceeding are ongoing and due to psychologist’s reports have been extended to the end of March, so 3 months beyond the 26 week limit.
I have found interaction with the independent reviewing officer somewhat disappointing, where the minutes say that both mother and I attended but they mentioned submissions from me. A pure whitewash not that I am empowered to change anything. The reviews seem every 3 months and last review was back in October and I’ve not heard anything since.
I have her name and many thanks for the suggestion. Nothing lost in trying. I have asked for a timescale from the SW and it’s hot air with unfulfilled promises. It was mentioned before Christmas that I could pick my children up from school, but now they have backtracked saying it’s not something they have ever done before. I spent the whole of last Saturday justifying my actions during an alleged unsupervised time (where the SW was 6m from us) where I allowed my children to run around in their socks and was late to finish. I had to justify it being a child friendly restaurant with a small soft-play area. Being late was in part not wanting to look like an ogre to my children. All these events are logged and weaponised to justify partial supervised family time.
Many thanks for the link, I shall read and digest.
I have chosen not to be the primary carer of my children as they crave their mother and have been in a similar position many years ago that didn’t end well. [As a male I am vulnerable to any child who can create a one-way ticket, through an unfounded accusation, to who they hope will be their mother. In this case my older child ended up in care and I haven’t seen since. Indeed I have only received vitriol.] I love my children and wary of history repeating itself.
To provide an example of their attachment, one of my children wrote a letter to their mother saying she doesn’t want to continue if she doesn’t end up living with their mother after the March hearing. I am making enquiries to how it made it's way to the SW. She's smart and unsure if this is genuine or or steer things her way by deliberately leaving it somewhere to be found.
Their mother has done her best to destroy the relationship with my children, I believe out of a mix of narcissism and insecurity.
I am aware that changing my solicitor is not wise at this point in proceedings; however I have generally taken a passive viewpoint and not acted against the mother. More recently I have been more robust with my solicitor but feel I am floundering. I will shortly read the link you supplied about working with a solicitor.
I respect the SW must make a decision in the best interests of the children. It depends on what you mean ‘best interest’. I find it difficult where the children didn’t want me to attend this school event where the guardian initially supported the attendance. Because their mother can’t attend this event (due to an order against her seeing our children outside of her family time) the observance of the children’s wishes, in my mind at least, simply reinforces their attachment to mother. After hearing my children's wishes the guardian changed her mind. Hence not wishing to be an ogre in the restaurant above since it’s one word from them and there’s a risk I won’t be seeing them at all.
The guardian's proposal many months ago included my increased contact with the children and contact with foster carer's. It's notable that a SW said that will never happen. I've spoken to her for 30 minutes in all this time after she missed appointments and didn't reply to my calls etc.
Many thanks for taking the time to reply.
I have found interaction with the independent reviewing officer somewhat disappointing, where the minutes say that both mother and I attended but they mentioned submissions from me. A pure whitewash not that I am empowered to change anything. The reviews seem every 3 months and last review was back in October and I’ve not heard anything since.
I have her name and many thanks for the suggestion. Nothing lost in trying. I have asked for a timescale from the SW and it’s hot air with unfulfilled promises. It was mentioned before Christmas that I could pick my children up from school, but now they have backtracked saying it’s not something they have ever done before. I spent the whole of last Saturday justifying my actions during an alleged unsupervised time (where the SW was 6m from us) where I allowed my children to run around in their socks and was late to finish. I had to justify it being a child friendly restaurant with a small soft-play area. Being late was in part not wanting to look like an ogre to my children. All these events are logged and weaponised to justify partial supervised family time.
Many thanks for the link, I shall read and digest.
I have chosen not to be the primary carer of my children as they crave their mother and have been in a similar position many years ago that didn’t end well. [As a male I am vulnerable to any child who can create a one-way ticket, through an unfounded accusation, to who they hope will be their mother. In this case my older child ended up in care and I haven’t seen since. Indeed I have only received vitriol.] I love my children and wary of history repeating itself.
To provide an example of their attachment, one of my children wrote a letter to their mother saying she doesn’t want to continue if she doesn’t end up living with their mother after the March hearing. I am making enquiries to how it made it's way to the SW. She's smart and unsure if this is genuine or or steer things her way by deliberately leaving it somewhere to be found.
Their mother has done her best to destroy the relationship with my children, I believe out of a mix of narcissism and insecurity.
I am aware that changing my solicitor is not wise at this point in proceedings; however I have generally taken a passive viewpoint and not acted against the mother. More recently I have been more robust with my solicitor but feel I am floundering. I will shortly read the link you supplied about working with a solicitor.
I respect the SW must make a decision in the best interests of the children. It depends on what you mean ‘best interest’. I find it difficult where the children didn’t want me to attend this school event where the guardian initially supported the attendance. Because their mother can’t attend this event (due to an order against her seeing our children outside of her family time) the observance of the children’s wishes, in my mind at least, simply reinforces their attachment to mother. After hearing my children's wishes the guardian changed her mind. Hence not wishing to be an ogre in the restaurant above since it’s one word from them and there’s a risk I won’t be seeing them at all.
The guardian's proposal many months ago included my increased contact with the children and contact with foster carer's. It's notable that a SW said that will never happen. I've spoken to her for 30 minutes in all this time after she missed appointments and didn't reply to my calls etc.
Many thanks for taking the time to reply.
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
The "Independent Reviewing Officer" wrote back to me and said, "You will note that our review reports are written to the child, and as such are not minutes of the meetings, discussions and consultations."
And that if I was unhappy with the Family Time arrangements to contact my solicitor, yet didn't want to entertain any discussion that limited family time might have an impact on the children. I can safely say the alienation by the mother is now continued with Child Services.
And that if I was unhappy with the Family Time arrangements to contact my solicitor, yet didn't want to entertain any discussion that limited family time might have an impact on the children. I can safely say the alienation by the mother is now continued with Child Services.
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Hi VD2ER,
Thank you for coming back with the IRO’s reply, because it tells you a lot about where the problem really sits.
That response is a classic deflection.
Yes, review reports are often written in child-friendly language, but that does not remove the IRO’s legal role. An IRO is not a newsletter writer. They are there to oversee the care plan, ensure it is progressing, and challenge drift. They cannot simply shut down concerns by saying “it’s written to the child” and then bounce you back to your solicitor.
What you are describing now is exactly what the system calls drift.
Months passing, contact staying restricted, vague promises, backtracking, no written progression plan, and every interaction being logged as though you are a risk rather than a parent.
And I want to be careful here, because I understand how it feels, but this is not “alienation being continued by Children’s Services” in an intentional way. It is something slightly different and more common: risk-averse inertia.
They are not moving because nobody is forcing them to and the IRO’s job is specifically to prevent that. If they are not willing to engage, then the next step is not more meetings, more patience, or more hoop-jumping.
The next step is accountability.
You are entitled to ask, in writing, for three very simple things:
What is the current justification for continued supervision?
What is the step-by-step plan to unsupervised contact?
What is the timescale between now and March?
Because right now, what they are doing is treating “supervised” as the default rather than the exception, even though you have a positive parenting assessment and no findings against you.
That is not proportionate safeguarding. That is containment.
On the practical side, you also need to stop getting pulled into petty “incident management” where socks in a restaurant become a safeguarding discussion. That is y how contact gets kept permanently small, not by one big allegation, but by constant micro-scrutiny.
You are not asking for something unreasonable here. You are asking for a safe father to have normal parenting time, with a clear pathway, rather than indefinite supervision because the children are emotionally enmeshed with the mother.
And that point about the children’s allegiance is crucial. Their wishes cannot be treated as a veto on rebuilding your relationship, because the entire purpose of care planning is to restore healthy attachment to both parents where possible. Otherwise, the system simply rewards the parent who created the allegiance in the first place.
So your next move is very simple to be honest
Do not argue about fairness. Do not argue about narcissism. Keep it professional.
Ask for the written plan.
Ask the guardian, through your solicitor, to address contact drift before March.
And if the IRO will not engage, then the IRO has a formal escalation route. That is what they exist for. They can trigger dispute resolution inside the local authority. If they refuse to even discuss contact, that itself is something your solicitor can raise.
You are not powerless here, but the system will not move unless you stop accepting “hot air” and start requiring written decisions.
You are doing the right thing by staying calm and persistent which is good on your part but The mistake would be thinking you have to be grateful for crumbs.
You don’t. You are their father, assessed as safe, and you are entitled to progression.
---------
For full transparency, I am not an official adviser. I am a parent with lived experience of the family court system, offering strategic guidance. Always consult with a solicitor regarding ongoing court proceedings.
Thank you for coming back with the IRO’s reply, because it tells you a lot about where the problem really sits.
That response is a classic deflection.
Yes, review reports are often written in child-friendly language, but that does not remove the IRO’s legal role. An IRO is not a newsletter writer. They are there to oversee the care plan, ensure it is progressing, and challenge drift. They cannot simply shut down concerns by saying “it’s written to the child” and then bounce you back to your solicitor.
What you are describing now is exactly what the system calls drift.
Months passing, contact staying restricted, vague promises, backtracking, no written progression plan, and every interaction being logged as though you are a risk rather than a parent.
And I want to be careful here, because I understand how it feels, but this is not “alienation being continued by Children’s Services” in an intentional way. It is something slightly different and more common: risk-averse inertia.
They are not moving because nobody is forcing them to and the IRO’s job is specifically to prevent that. If they are not willing to engage, then the next step is not more meetings, more patience, or more hoop-jumping.
The next step is accountability.
You are entitled to ask, in writing, for three very simple things:
What is the current justification for continued supervision?
What is the step-by-step plan to unsupervised contact?
What is the timescale between now and March?
Because right now, what they are doing is treating “supervised” as the default rather than the exception, even though you have a positive parenting assessment and no findings against you.
That is not proportionate safeguarding. That is containment.
On the practical side, you also need to stop getting pulled into petty “incident management” where socks in a restaurant become a safeguarding discussion. That is y how contact gets kept permanently small, not by one big allegation, but by constant micro-scrutiny.
You are not asking for something unreasonable here. You are asking for a safe father to have normal parenting time, with a clear pathway, rather than indefinite supervision because the children are emotionally enmeshed with the mother.
And that point about the children’s allegiance is crucial. Their wishes cannot be treated as a veto on rebuilding your relationship, because the entire purpose of care planning is to restore healthy attachment to both parents where possible. Otherwise, the system simply rewards the parent who created the allegiance in the first place.
So your next move is very simple to be honest
Do not argue about fairness. Do not argue about narcissism. Keep it professional.
Ask for the written plan.
Ask the guardian, through your solicitor, to address contact drift before March.
And if the IRO will not engage, then the IRO has a formal escalation route. That is what they exist for. They can trigger dispute resolution inside the local authority. If they refuse to even discuss contact, that itself is something your solicitor can raise.
You are not powerless here, but the system will not move unless you stop accepting “hot air” and start requiring written decisions.
You are doing the right thing by staying calm and persistent which is good on your part but The mistake would be thinking you have to be grateful for crumbs.
You don’t. You are their father, assessed as safe, and you are entitled to progression.
---------
For full transparency, I am not an official adviser. I am a parent with lived experience of the family court system, offering strategic guidance. Always consult with a solicitor regarding ongoing court proceedings.
-
Suzie, FRG Adviser
- Posts: 4873
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:57 pm
Re: Policy in regards to unsupervised time with children.
Dear VD2ER,VD2ER wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 9:10 pm The "Independent Reviewing Officer" wrote back to me and said, "You will note that our review reports are written to the child, and as such are not minutes of the meetings, discussions and consultations."
And that if I was unhappy with the Family Time arrangements to contact my solicitor, yet didn't want to entertain any discussion that limited family time might have an impact on the children. I can safely say the alienation by the mother is now continued with Child Services.
Thank you for your updating post and my apologies for the delay in responding to you.
I am sorry to hear that you are not satisfied with the response from the IRO. I think the next best step is to ask your solicitor to raise your concerns about contact in court and make it clear that you have tried addressing this with children’s service (and specifically the IRO) directly. You can also discuss these concerns with the guardian directly.
I hope that this is of some help. Please post again if you have any further queries or you can call our free, confidential adviceline on 0808 801 0366 (Monday to Friday, 9:30am – 3pm). We also have a webchat which is currently open on Monday and Thursday afternoons.
Best wishes,
Suzie
Do you have 3 minutes to complete our evaluation form ? We would value your feedback on the parents’ forum.
Who is online
In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 86 on Wed Feb 11, 2026 4:00 pm