B (Children)

In care proceedings, an appellate court may respond to subsequent events showing that an endorsed care plan has wholly failed, even where the original decision was not shown to have been erroneous when made. Where a child’s return to a parent requires short-term assessment and support, an interim care order may be preferable to immediately imposing residence and supervision arrangements because it preserves temporary local-authority control over placement. A long-term care order is inappropriate where the child is to live with the parent. Care judgments should ordinarily contain a clear summation of the family circumstances, the evidence and the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed arrangements.

The father sought permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Barclay in the Bristol County Court on 16 August 2007. The judge had made a full care order for K, aged 11, a further interim care order for R, aged nine, and authorised the local authority to terminate contact between the father and both children.

The proposed appeal concerning R was no longer pursued. The appeal concerning K arose after the foster placements and no-contact plan endorsed by the judge had failed. K repeatedly absconded to Bristol, refused education and would not engage with the placements. The local authority and Children’s Guardian accepted that he should probably return to the father, with professional support. The central issue was the appropriate immediate legal framework for that return.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was granted in relation to K and refused in relation to R. The appeal concerning K was allowed. The full care order was set aside and replaced by an interim care order effective immediately and lasting until 5 February 2008. The matter was remitted to Judge Barclay for consideration of the optimum orders for K.
2. The original judgment had not been shown to be erroneous on the evidence available when it was made. The application had been adjourned because of developments after the judgment. Those developments demonstrated that the care plan for K had entirely failed: he had repeatedly absconded, had not attended school and had refused to engage with the foster placements. The local authority and the guardian accepted that there was no viable alternative, at least in the short term, to his return to the father’s home.
3. The court considered that the immediate arrangements should preserve temporary local-authority control while the return was tested and supported. An interim care order could secure that control and allow the local authority to place K with the father while the lower court considered the longer-term position. A residence order with a supervision order was not necessarily the optimum immediate framework. A continuing care order while K lived with the father on a long-term basis would not be appropriate.
4. The proposed return was to be accompanied by professional assistance, including family intervention, regular home visits and psychological support for K. The court also noted that the first-instance judgment lacked a conventional summation of the family circumstances and the competing advantages and disadvantages of the proposed arrangements. That omission was unfortunate, particularly because the plan carried an identifiable risk of breakdown, but the principal appellate intervention arose from the subsequent failure of the plan.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 31 January 2008, permission was granted for K, the appeal was allowed, the full care order was set aside and an interim care order was substituted pending reconsideration by the county court. Permission was refused concerning R.
2. Bristol County Court: On 16 August 2007, His Honour Judge Barclay made a full care order for K, a further interim care order for R and authorised the local authority to terminate contact between the father and the children.