Westminster City Council v RA & Ors

Procedural fairness under Article 8 requires parents to be involved in local-authority child-protection decision-making to a degree sufficient to protect their interests, assessed across the process as a whole. A failure to follow guidance requiring a pre-proceedings multi-disciplinary conference does not automatically invalidate care proceedings or require refusal of an interim order. The court should consider the substance of the involvement, the circumstances facing the authority, and whether the parent had a fair opportunity to express views. Human-rights complaints arising before a final care order should ordinarily be addressed within the care proceedings, alongside the merits of the care plan. There is no general requirement for a local authority to prepare and file an interim care plan before or with an application under section 31 of the Children Act 1989.

Westminster City Council applied for interim care orders concerning two siblings who were in hospital with serious and complex medical needs. The mother challenged the applications as ultra vires, arguing that the Council had failed to involve her in a pre-proceedings multi-disciplinary conference and had thereby breached Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. She also argued that the evidence did not establish the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989.

The Council had consulted the mother repeatedly, explained its proposals, changed its proposed placement following her concerns, and ultimately sought an interim order allowing the children to live with her under monitoring and support. The issues were whether the procedural complaint invalidated the applications and whether the threshold and proportionality requirements for interim orders were met.

1. Procedural fairness. The application was not an ultra vires exercise of statutory powers. The relevant question was whether the mother had been involved in the decision-making process, viewed as a whole, to a degree sufficient to protect her Article 8 interests. The guidance contemplated a pre-proceedings multi-disciplinary conference, but its purpose was meaningful family participation and communication, not rigid compliance with an inflexible procedural condition.
2. On the facts, the mother had been repeatedly informed of the Council’s concerns and proposed course, had been given opportunities to express her views, and had indicated agreement before proceedings were issued. The conference took place shortly afterwards, and she did not object at that meeting. There was therefore no procedural unfairness or Article 8 breach warranting dismissal of the applications.
3. Human-rights complaints. Complaints about pre-proceedings fairness arising before a final care order could, and normally should, be determined within the care proceedings when the full merits of the care plan were considered. An allegation of a Convention breach did not, without more, justify transfer from the family proceedings court or refusal of an interim order.
4. Care planning. No guidance or practice direction required a local authority to prepare and file a care plan before or with an application under section 31. The relevant protocol contemplated interim care plans being available by the case-management stage.
5. Threshold and proportionality. The children’s acute medical needs, uncertainty about the mother’s support, the possible return of the father, and unresolved concerns about earlier care established reasonable grounds for believing that the children were likely to suffer significant harm without protective intervention. An interim care order permitting placement with the mother under close monitoring and support was appropriate and proportionate. The interim care plans were approved and interim care orders were made, subject to further consideration and a possible application for a residential parenting assessment under section 38(6).