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
I’m very confused 🤔
Re: I’m very confused 🤔
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.
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.
Re: I’m very confused 🤔
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
Re: I’m very confused 🤔
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.
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.
Who is online
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 72 on Tue Dec 09, 2025 7:09 pm