G & Ors v Local Authority

Article 8 requires a local authority to involve parents fairly in child-protection decision-making at every stage, including after a care order has been made. Before deciding to remove children from parental care, the authority should explain its proposal, reasons and factual basis, and give the parents a proper opportunity to respond and make representations. Parents should normally be able to attend and address any critical meeting. Article 8 also imposes positive duties of record-keeping, disclosure and, where necessary, assistance to parents who cannot readily understand written information. A substantively justified intervention does not cure an unfair decision-making process. These duties remain enforceable through judicial review and proceedings under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Following earlier care proceedings, four children were rehabilitated to their parents under care plans approved by the court. A different local authority later decided, without inviting the parents to the decisive panel meeting or giving them an adequate opportunity to respond, that the children should be placed in care. The authority also failed to disclose relevant notes and records.

The parents applied under section 39 of the Children Act 1989 for discharge of the care orders and under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for relief preventing removal. Before the hearing, revised care plans providing for continued rehabilitation were accepted. The applications were therefore withdrawn, but the court considered whether the authority’s decision-making process had complied with article 8.

1. Article 8 safeguards. Article 8 requires fairness in the decision-making process leading to interference with family life. The requirement applies before care proceedings, during them and after they have ended while a local authority implements a care order. It requires parents to be involved to a degree sufficient to protect their interests.
2. Required procedure. Before deciding to remove children from parents, the authority must normally state in writing what it proposes, why it proposes it and the factual matters relied upon. It must give the parents a proper opportunity to answer the allegations and make representations. Parents, with representatives if desired, should normally be able to attend and address any critical meeting at which the decision will be made.
3. Disclosure and records. Article 8 imposes positive duties to disclose key documents, including attendance notes and minutes of important meetings. Social workers should keep clear, accurate, full and balanced records, and important meetings should have agendas and agreed minutes disclosed promptly.
4. Interaction with the care order. A local authority’s parental responsibility under section 33 of the Children Act 1989 does not permit it to act over the heads of the parents or contrary to article 8. The court’s lack of supervisory jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 does not prevent judicial review or relief under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The authority’s counsel’s contrary submission, based on In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan), was misconceived.
5. Application. The parents had not been given adequate notice, an adequate opportunity to make representations or an opportunity to attend the decisive meeting. The process therefore breached article 8, even assuming that removal would substantively have been proportionate under article 8(2). The authority’s failure to disclose relevant records caused further unfairness. The case was not urgent enough to justify abbreviated procedures. Where parents have disabilities, limited literacy or other difficulties, the authority must take ameliorative steps to secure informed participation.
6. The revised care plans were approved. The parents’ applications under section 39 of the Children Act 1989 and section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were withdrawn.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any appellate history.