London Borough of Bexley v MJ & Ors

In care proceedings, the court cannot continue Part IV proceedings to supervise or police a local authority’s care planning where the statutory threshold for a care or supervision order is not established. The proceedings must end, and wardship cannot be used to supply an alternative supervisory jurisdiction barred by the statutory scheme.

In private-law proceedings, the child’s welfare remains paramount. Orders under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 must be necessary and proportionate. A residence order should reflect the reality of the child’s living arrangements, not parental status or bargaining power. A shared residence order is appropriate only where it reflects the child’s actual life with both parents and is in the child’s best interests.

The local authority applied for care orders concerning two autistic children under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. It later sought permission to withdraw after accepting that the threshold could not be established. The parents and children’s guardian agreed. The parents also sought private-law orders concerning residence and contact, while the father sought wardship, further expert assessment and increased contact.

The court had to determine whether the care proceedings could be adjourned or continued to secure greater certainty about services, whether wardship was available, and what residence and contact arrangements best served the children’s welfare.

1. Care proceedings. Permission was granted to withdraw the Part IV proceedings. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 requires proof of significant harm or a likelihood of significant harm attributable to the care being given or likely to be given. The court accepted that the threshold was not established.

2. Once threshold is not established, the court has no jurisdiction to prolong the proceedings in order to monitor or police the local authority’s proposed services. Continuing the case would artificially preserve proceedings under Part IV without a statutory basis. The court could not use wardship to provide that supervisory function.

3. For the private-law issues, the children’s welfare was paramount under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The welfare checklist was applied. Under section 1(5), an order should not be made unless it is required, and any order under section 8 had to satisfy necessity and proportionality under Article 8 of the Convention.

4. The court approved an agreed staged contact arrangement, including overnight contact, medication training for the father and continued taxi transport. Joint contact was refused because there was not yet sufficient agreement or successful implementation of consistent management and boundary-setting methods in both homes. The court also declined to predict or order additional holiday contact.

5. Neither a sole residence order nor a shared residence order was appropriate. Both children’s main home was with the mother, and a residence order would not add to either parent’s parental responsibility. A shared residence order must reflect the reality of the children’s lives and was inappropriate on the existing arrangements.

6. The applications for wardship, further expert assessment and financial determination were refused or withdrawn. The children’s guardian was directed to become a guardian in any future proceedings, and the local authority consented to intervene if required.