Islington v Z & Ors

Withdrawal of care proceedings is governed primarily by the child’s welfare. Continued proceedings confer no automatic benefit; there must be a solid advantage in continuing them. That assessment must also recognise that parents facing serious allegations may have a pressing interest in a full hearing and exoneration, and that children have a direct interest in the truth being established.

Care proceedings are inquisitorial but are not a general investigation. Findings beyond those necessary to establish threshold or determine the care plan require justification. Where the local authority accepts that it cannot establish threshold, the court may permit withdrawal. The order should state clearly the basis on which withdrawal is permitted, particularly where unresolved allegations could create future uncertainty.

These were first-instance care proceedings concerning twins, one of whom had sustained serious head and retinal injuries. The local authority alleged that the injuries were non-accidental and had been caused by the mother. The medical evidence was divided and, following experts’ meetings, the local authority and children’s guardian concluded that the children should return home irrespective of the outcome of a fact-finding hearing.

The court considered whether the proceedings should continue for fact-finding, whether the parents should have an opportunity to seek exoneration, and the proper form of any order permitting the local authority to withdraw its applications.

1. Withdrawal and welfare. The governing consideration on an application to withdraw care proceedings is whether withdrawal promotes or conflicts with the child’s welfare. Continued proceedings provide no automatic advantage. The court must ask whether there is a solid advantage to the child in continuing proceedings that may have become redundant or ineffective.
2. Interests of parents and children. That welfare inquiry does not permit serious allegations to be left unresolved without careful consideration of the parents’ interests. A parent may have a pressing interest in a full hearing to obtain complete exoneration. The children also have a direct and important interest in the truth being established, although there are cases where issues are better left unresolved within family privacy.
3. Proper scope of fact-finding. Care proceedings are inquisitorial, but they are not a general inquiry into all events in the family’s history. The local authority must establish threshold and facts necessary to support the proposed care plan under Children Act 1989, section 31A. Additional findings require a present need and justification. The court may refuse or curtail a fact-finding exercise where its possible advantages are outweighed by delay, cost and the risk of an inconclusive result.
4. Order and outcome. The court declined initially to approve the proposed order because it did not state whether the local authority maintained an arguable case or accepted that it could no longer establish its allegations. The local authority subsequently accepted that it was unable to establish the threshold criteria. The court therefore permitted withdrawal, recording that basis in the order. The children were to return home, and no monitoring or support could be imposed without the parents’ agreement.