I’m very confused 🤔

[MR5B00]

Ok so I received my resolution assessment today but I don’t understand and my solicitor isn’t much help

“It is for the reasons stated above that, I am of the professional view, a
resolution-based approach does not currently reduce the risk of harm to
A, if he was to be placed in the care of Mr. and Mrs. I cannot support joint caregiving.

Regarding Mr., I cannot support sole caregiving – he would need to
demonstrate at least six months of changes relating to emotional regulation,
mental health stability alongside therapeutic interventions. At week 16 of
Care Proceedings, this is unfortunately beyond A timescales to achieve
permanence, and I cannot support any further delay.

Regarding Mrs. I cannot support sole caregiving – she would need
to demonstrate at least six months of changes relating to ending her
relationship with Mr. alongside therapeutic interventions. At week 16 of Care Proceedings, this is unfortunately beyond A timescales to
achieve permanence, and I cannot support any further delay.”

So I don’t understand how with 6 months myself or my husband could care for our son but we can’t care together even with the therapy I have asked my solicitor for us to get an extension for me to do my therapy as me and the husband have agreed to leave each other so my son isn’t adopted but I’m baffled at why we have to end when dv wasn’t an issue in our relationship

[Winter25]

I understand why this report has confused you, the Resolution wording is very technical.

Here’s what it actually means in plain English for you

1. The assessor is saying you and your husband together are “too high-risk” right now.
This does not mean DV.
It means the assessor thinks you both have unmet therapeutic needs at the same time, so there would be nobody in the home acting as the “protective parent.”

That’s why they won’t support joint care.

2. For each of you alone, the assessor says the risk could be reduced, but only after 6 months of therapy and stability.
So yes, each of you could care for your baby in the future, but not within the baby’s timescales, because court timescales run much faster than adult therapy timescales.

That is why the assessor says they cannot support a delay.

3. The “end the relationship” bit isn’t about DV.
It’s about the assessor saying:

If Mum stays with Dad, she cannot meet the change requirements alone.

If Dad stays with Mum, he cannot meet them either.

They think you would “hold each other back” in terms of individual change work.

It is a safeguarding logic, not a judgment of your relationship.

4. The confusing part (why each of you could parent alone but not together):
This is extremely common in Resolution assessments.
The model often concludes one parent could be safe after work, but the relationship dynamic prevents change happening fast enough.

It is not personal, it is the framework they use.

5. Asking for an extension is absolutely the right step.
Children’s timescales can be extended if the plan is realistic and proportionate.
You are not wrong to ask for that.

So In short

Your Possible Options Going Forward

Here are the three realistic pathways families in your situation usually have. You can discuss any of these with your solicitor:

1 Asking the Court for a Short Extension of Time

If the only barrier is “six months of therapy or stability,” you can ask the court to extend the timetable.

Courts can extend proceedings when the alternative is adoption, especially if:

you’ve already engaged in therapy, and

the assessment says change is achievable (it does, it says you can be safe carers in six months).

This is reasonable to request, and your solicitor can make that application.

2 One Parent Being Considered for Sole Care

The assessor has said that either parent individually could be safe after six months of work.

That means:

You can ask the court to assess one parent as the primary sole carer,

and the other parent continues to work on therapeutic needs separately.

Many courts are willing to explore this when the alternative is adoption.

3 Temporary Separation as a Safeguarding Strategy

This is not about domestic violence.
It is simply a risk-reduction option often used in these cases.

A temporary separation can allow:

one parent to be considered as a safe carer,

while the other parent works on their therapeutic plan,

without delaying your child’s timescales.

Courts do accept temporary separation as a viable plan if both parents agree and it keeps the child within the family.

This does not mean ending your marriage , it is a safeguarding proposal.

[MR5B00]

Why is my child’s social worker and my solicitor telling me the separation has to be permanent? I spoke with sw today and she is going to speak with her manager, the guardian and the the isw next week about the possibility of my son being placed with me while I do my therapy as myself and my husband have agreed to separate for our son whether it’s temporary or permanent as we don’t want to lose him but realistically after we have both completed the work set out in our psychological and the and the isw assessment which would in there eyes minimise the “risk” would we be able to reconcile And be a family or would they take our son away again if we did ? I don’t want to deceive them and I don’t really want to lose my husband I’ve been with him since I was 14 (16years) but ultimately we know our son has to come first

[Winter25]

In short: no one can legally require a permanent separation unless there is a COURT ORDER saying so. What is happening here is not a legal rule, it is professional risk management and caution.

Here’s what’s really going on.

Your social worker and solicitor are likely saying “permanent” because they are thinking defensively. From their point of view, a permanent separation feels safer, clearer, and easier to justify if the case is later scrutinised. It reduces uncertainty for them. That does not mean the law requires it.

The Resolution assessment does not say you must never be together again. It says that right now, the relationship makes it harder for either of you to demonstrate individual change quickly enough for your child’s timescales. That is why separation is being discussed as a risk-reduction strategy, not a punishment and not a judgment on your relationship.

If your son were placed with you while you complete therapy, the key issue going forward would be transparency and timing, not deception.

What professionals worry about is this scenario: a child is placed, the adults reconcile quickly, and the original risks are considered to have returned without being reassessed. That’s why they talk in absolutes. But in practice, reconciliation is not automatically prohibited.

Yes, it is possible to reconcile later, provided that:

both of you have completed the recommended work,
there is evidence of sustained change and stability,
and any move back together is discussed openly and planned, not hidden.

What would cause serious problems is reconciling secretly or suddenly, because that undermines trust and can trigger re-assessment.

If, in the future, you were to say something like:
“We are considering reconciliation now that the work has been completed and risks have reduced. We want to do this transparently and with guidance so it is safe for our child,”
that is very different from deceiving anyone.

Your relationship history and commitment matter, and the system does not get to decide who you love. But they do look at how risk is managed over time.

Right now, the focus is about getting your son home safely. Separation is being viewed as a means to that end, not necessarily a life sentence.

You are doing the right thing by being honest, by asking these questions, and by prioritising your child without trying to game the system. That matters more than anything.

A solicitor should explain all lawful options and how to argue them, not just repeat the most cautious plan being suggested by the local authority. Saying separation must be permanent, when that is not stated in the assessment or ordered by the court, is a very narrow interpretation.

I would get a second opinion on the matter, Getting a second opinion doesn’t mean you sack your current solicitor straight away. It can simply help you understand:

whether a temporary separation with clear safeguards could be argued,
whether a time-limited placement with review points is realistic,
nd whether your current legal advice is being overly risk-averse.

Many parents do this quietly, especially at critical stages. If another solicitor gives the same advice, at least you know it’s consistent. If not, you may feel more confident challenging the current approach.

Ultimately, legal advice should empower you to make informed choices, not leave you feeling boxed into a single outcome.

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Why is my child’s social worker and my solicitor telling me the separation has to be permanent? I spoke with sw today and she is going to speak with her manager, the guardian and the the isw next week about the possibility of my son being placed with me while I do my therapy as myself and my husband have agreed to separate for our son whether it’s temporary or permanent as we don’t want to lose him but realistically after we have both completed the work set out in our psychological and the and the isw assessment which would in there eyes minimise the “risk” would we be able to reconcile And be a family or would they take our son away again if we did ? I don’t want to deceive them and I don’t really want to lose my husband I’ve been with him since I was 14 (16years) but ultimately we know our son has to come first

Dear MR5BOO

Thank you for your post and welcome to the discussion board. My name is Suzy, I am an online adviser at Family Rights Group and will be replying to your two posts today.

I am sorry to hear of your situation, it must be a stressful and difficult time for you and your partner. I hope you find the information and advice below helpful.

Your child is subject to care proceedings. You have received your resolution assessment and confused by it’s finding. You have discussed this with your solicitor, but you say they have not been much help in explaining the outcome to you.

From the information you have provided, children’s services have stated that they do not support you and your partner caring for your child together because the risk to your child is too high. This has been assessed using the Resolutions Model Assessment which indicates risk and likely future risk of harm.

This type of assessment can be used in circumstances where the Court has determined that a parent has inflicted an injury on their child, or they cannot be ruled out of the pool of perpetrators. If you search the term you will come up with links to articles/information by lawyers and independent social workers who explain this in fuller detail, but we cannot endorse any of those individually.

Children’s services state that potentially you or your partner may be able to care for your child separately following therapeutic support and further assessment, but they do not think this is achievable within your child’s timescales. i.e they believe that you and your partner would need at least six months of therapy before consideration could be given and, this is too long for your child to wait for permanency.

You are confused as to why they would consider separate parenting but not together parenting. You have asked your solicitor to make an application for an extension to the care proceedings. The allocated social worker is going to speak to professionals about whether there is support for you to continue to look after your child whilst you receive therapeutic support.

Children’s services say that you must separate from your partner to care for your child. You say that whilst you will prioritise your child and separate from your partner to prevent adoption, once therapeutic support is completed you may resume your relationship. You and your partner are willing to work with children’s services to achieve this. However, you are worried if you do resume your relationship , your child will be removed from your care.

I cannot speak in specific terms because I do not have all the information before me. As a rule, when children’s services recommend parents separate to ensure the safety of a child, it is because in their professional opinion the dynamics of the relationship is or can become harmful to the child.

Children's services do not have jurisdiction to enforce separation between people and their relationships. They can make recommendation and requests to this effect based on their professional opinion but they cannot impose. However, it would be unwise to deliberately withhold information from them therefore, your stance of wanting to work with them is positive and likely to go some way to demonstrate your commitment to keeping your child safe from harm/potential harm.

You have given an undertaking to children’s services that you will separate from your partner to care for your child. If you decided to resume your relationship at any point in the future, I would strongly recommend you inform children’s services of this decision prior to commencing. They would then need to carry out further assessment of risk. I would advise you to work transparently with children’s services. If you do not, and they later discover you have tried to hide or withhold information this will raise their concerns, and it will also place you and your partner under addition stresses and strains which is not likely to be good for both of your mental health wellbeing.

It will be the court's final decision who decides the outcome of your child’s permanent care and whether your request for an extension to the court hearing is granted. I think it is a good idea that you have asked for one as it may give you some more time to the therapeutic support you and your partner both need.

I suggest that you continue to work closely with your solicitor to ensure all of the relevant information is put before the courts. I have added
HERE a link to our guidance when working with solicitors and what you may wish to consider if things are not going to well.

I have further added HERE a link to an organisation called Matchmothers. They provide emotional support to mother’s who are no longer caring for their children in different circumstances. Please do check out their website for further information.

Lastly, I have added HERE a link to information and advice regarding the adoption process.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you would like to talk to an adviser at Family Rights Group about your situation, please call the freephone advice line on 0808 801 0366, Mon to Fri, 9.30 am to 3.00 pm. If you prefer, you can post back, use our advice enquiry form or webchat. Please refer to our website for further information.

Best wishes, Suzie