London Borough of Barnet v NJ & Ors

In determining arrangements for children, the court must give primary weight to their welfare and to the need for a secure, long-term placement. Where a parent remains emotionally involved with a person who presents a serious risk to children, and cannot demonstrate an enduring separation, insight into that risk or reliable co-operation with professionals, the court may conclude that the parent cannot protect the child. A parenting assessment should not be directed merely to test whether change might eventually occur where the evidence does not establish the necessary separation and the child’s timescale cannot accommodate the assessment. The child’s need for prompt permanence may outweigh the parent’s wish for further assessment, notwithstanding a good attachment and satisfactory physical care.

The proceedings concerned three children of the same mother. Two older children had been living with their respective fathers following findings in earlier proceedings that their father presented a significant risk of harm and that the mother had failed to protect them. The local authority sought Residence and Supervision Orders for those children, and a Care Order and Placement Order for the youngest child, who was living with a foster carer. The mother no longer opposed the older children living with their fathers but sought a further assessment of her parenting capacity in relation to the youngest child and opposed adoption. The central issues were whether she had permanently separated from the youngest child’s father, whether she could protect the children from the identified risks, and whether further assessment was compatible with the youngest child’s welfare and timescale.

1. Orders for the older children. Residence Orders were made in favour of the respective fathers, with Supervision Orders. The placements were intended to be long-term and should not be disrupted without very good cause. The court endorsed a reduction in the mother’s contact, initially to fortnightly supervised contact, with later arrangements to be reconsidered in light of the children’s adjustment.
2. Assessment of the mother. The mother had not established that she had separated permanently, physically and emotionally, from the father of the youngest child. Her continuing involvement with him and his family, her acceptance of his innocence until a late stage, breaches of court orders, secrecy, dishonesty and lack of co-operation demonstrated that she could not reliably protect the children. She lacked sufficient insight into the risks and the harm caused by her conduct.
3. The expert evidence indicated that parenting work should not begin unless the court was satisfied that there had been a complete and permanent separation. The court was not so satisfied. It was also not sufficiently optimistic that the mother could make the necessary changes within the youngest child’s timescale. Her good attachment to the child and satisfactory physical care did not overcome the concerns about emotional parenting and protection.
4. The application for a further parenting assessment was therefore refused. The Care Order sought for the youngest child was made and the local authority’s care plan for adoption was approved in principle. The Placement Order application was adjourned to allow the mother time to reflect and the Guardian to report on welfare issues.
5. The court considered but declined to make an order under Section 91(14). Instead, future applications concerning the older children were directed to be made in the High Court and reserved to the judge.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings before Mr Justice Moylan, following which the three children were removed from the mother’s care. No appellate history of the present judgment is stated.