Norfolk County Council v The Parents & BC (By His Child's Guardian)

When deciding whether to permit withdrawal of care proceedings, the child’s future welfare must dominate the decision. Permission should be granted where thorough and current assessment shows that the child is being safely and appropriately cared for and there is no present basis for finding a risk of harm.

The court should avoid making judicial findings or comments on untested evidence where the evidence may later be considered in a proposed appeal or rehearing.

The proceedings concerned BC, the youngest child of parents whose three older children had previously been made subject to care and freeing orders following findings concerning non-accidental injuries to one child.

After BC’s birth, Norfolk County Council obtained extensive assessments of the parents and their care of him, including a period of residential assessment. BC remained with his parents and was subsequently returned with them to the community.

Norfolk later concluded that no care or other order was required and applied, with the support of all parties, for permission to withdraw the care application. The parents indicated that they intended to seek permission to appeal out of time in the earlier proceedings. The central issue was whether withdrawal was consistent with BC’s welfare.

1. Permission to withdraw granted. The court gave Norfolk County Council permission to withdraw its application for a care order, bringing the proceedings concerning BC to an end.
2. BC’s future welfare was the essential consideration. The court was satisfied that his position had been thoroughly investigated and assessed over a prolonged period. He was developing normally, was well cared for, and was thriving in a stable and loving family environment.
3. There was no current basis for considering that BC was at risk of harm. The evidence showed that both parents had demonstrated the capacity to recognise and meet his needs, and that the intensive support and assessment had produced a positive outcome.
4. The court declined to make further judicial comments on the medical evidence or the history concerning the older child. No oral evidence had been heard, and the parents proposed seeking an out-of-time appeal and, if permitted, a full rehearing. It would therefore have been wrong to comment on evidence that might later be tested and adjudicated upon.

First-instance decision. The judgment described earlier care proceedings concerning the parents’ three older children, but no appeal decision was stated.