A (A Child)

A local authority must keep a care plan under review during care proceedings and revise it when the evidence requires a change. The current plan must be placed before the court. A judge cannot require permission before the authority revises its plan, and cannot make a care order on the basis of an outdated plan. If the judge considers the revised plan unacceptable, the proper course is to invite reconsideration or refuse the care order. Consequential placement orders may be made on the basis of the fresh care order and revised plan.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for BJ. The proceedings included consideration of the future role and contact of his maternal grandfather, Mr Stimson. During the hearing, the Guardian and social worker moved towards supporting continuing direct contact or a possible continuing role after adoption. The care plan was revised, but the revised version was not placed before HHJ Philip Price QC, who proceeded on the existing plan and made an adverse finding that Mr Stimson posed a risk to a future placement.

The father appealed from the orders made at Cardiff County Court on 12 February 2008. Permission was granted by Wilson LJ. By the time of the appeal, the local authority and Guardian substantially supported the appeal. The central issues were whether the orders could stand on the revised care plan and whether the adverse risk finding was sustainable.

1. Appeal allowed. The care order was to be made or maintained on the basis of the revised care plan. A consequential placement order was also appropriate. The revised plan was to be lodged, and permission was given for the Guardian’s report to be disclosed to the court below and the prospective adopters.
2. Under section 31A of the Children Act 1989, a local authority must prepare a care plan where an application is made on which a care order might be made. While the application is pending, it must keep the plan under review and revise it, or make a new plan, if a change is required by the evidence.
3. The authority does not require the judge’s consent or permission to revise the plan. The responsibility for presenting the current plan rests with the authority, and the judge has no jurisdiction to prevent its revision. If the judge dislikes the revised plan, the proper options are to ask the authority to reconsider it or to refuse to make the care order.
4. The judge erred by making the care order on the basis of the existing, outdated plan. He also made an impermissible finding that Mr Stimson posed a risk of disruption. That finding was inconsistent with the evidence of the social worker, Guardian and psychologist, the absence of harm during two years of contact, and the lack of disruption to the foster placement.
5. Lord Justice Wall agreed with Lord Justice Thorpe and emphasised the statutory duty to maintain an up-to-date plan. Lord Justice Stanley Burnton agreed with both judgments. The decision was unanimous.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed. The care and placement orders were made or maintained on the basis of the revised care plan.
2. Cardiff County Court: HHJ Philip Price QC made care and placement orders on 12 February 2008, proceeding on the existing care plan.