The Local Authority v RK & Ors

In care proceedings, placement with a parent remains the starting point where consistent with the child’s welfare. The decisive question is whether the court can be satisfied that the child will be physically safe in that parent’s care. A changed environment does not justify placement where the court lacks a sufficient understanding of the causes of earlier serious harm and therefore has no safe basis for assuming that it will not recur. A risk that is unmanageable and unacceptable in the short to medium term requires removal, notwithstanding the serious consequences for the child.

The proceedings concerned ‘Z’, an infant whose three older siblings had previously been removed from the parents after one child suffered serious non-accidental injuries. The local authority sought a care order. The mother had been ‘Z’’s primary carer, while both parents ultimately advanced alternative cases for sole care. Expert evidence was that the parents could not safely care for ‘Z’ together.

The central issues were whether the father should be assessed as a sole carer and whether the mother could safely care for ‘Z’ in light of the family history, the mother’s account of the earlier injuries, and the reduction of professional support.

1. Statutory framework. The threshold under Children Act 1989, section 31(2), was conceded. The court therefore applied section 1, treating ‘Z’’s welfare as paramount and taking account of section 1(3). Placement with a parent was the preferred outcome unless excluded by the evidence.
2. Father. The father’s lack of commitment alone would not have justified excluding him, particularly because the mother had been the primary carer and he had shown some parental aptitude. However, his evidence and history did not satisfy the court that he intended, or could sustain, the permanent exclusion of the mother from ‘Z’’s care. His proposed sole-care arrangement was therefore not a safe or realistic basis for assessment.
3. Mother. The court accepted that the mother’s circumstances had materially improved and that ‘Z’ had so far developed normally. Nevertheless, the mother had repeatedly injured the older child despite knowing the danger, concealed the conduct, delayed seeking treatment, and continued to give incomplete accounts. The court remained unable to understand sufficiently why the earlier harm occurred or whether the underlying risk had been removed.
4. Outcome. The court could not be satisfied that ‘Z’ would remain physically safe once the existing safety arrangements were relaxed. The risk was unmanageable and unacceptable in the short to medium term. A care order was consequently made in favour of the local authority. Contact and contentious placement-order directions were left for later determination.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.