WSCC v M & Ors

Permission to withdraw care proceedings is a discretionary welfare decision. The court must focus on whether withdrawal promotes the child’s welfare, rather than on the consequential discharge of an interim care order. The Children Act 1989 welfare checklist may assist, although its use is not mandatory. Proportionality and proper use of public and judicial resources are relevant, but cannot override welfare. Withdrawal may be appropriate where fact-finding is unnecessary and adversarial proceedings may undermine the children’s welfare, even though the evidence could satisfy the care-order threshold.

A local authority applied under rule 4.5 of the FPR 1991 for permission to withdraw care proceedings concerning four children. The application was supported by the parents and one child. The children’s guardian did not oppose withdrawal but preferred an order that no order be made following a fact-finding hearing.

The proceedings followed the children’s emergency removal under interim care orders after allegations that their mother had fabricated or exaggerated illness in herself and the children. The children later returned home and the family agreed a safeguarding plan. The issue was whether proceedings should continue to a fact-finding hearing or be withdrawn.

1. Permission granted. The local authority was given permission to withdraw the care proceedings.
2. The application involved a discretionary welfare assessment. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 was engaged, but because an application for permission to withdraw fell outside section 1(4), section 1(3) was not mandatory. The welfare checklist could nevertheless assist the court.
3. The court should focus on the application for permission, not on the consequential discharge of the interim care order. The consequences of withdrawal did not determine the legal character of the application.
4. Proportionality and the principles of the CPR overriding objective were relevant considerations. They could not displace welfare, but the court could consider whether a lengthy fact-finding hearing would be a proper and proportionate use of public and judicial resources.
5. The children were settled at home, the parents had accepted a safeguarding plan, and the father had demonstrated an ability to work with professionals. The remaining risks could be managed through the plan.
6. The children’s welfare did not require fact-finding. Continuing adversarial proceedings were likely to undermine their welfare. Withdrawal was therefore preferable, notwithstanding evidence potentially capable of satisfying section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.
7. The judgment was not a determination of contested facts and remained subject to strict anonymity and reporting restrictions.

First-instance decision. The judgment records transfer from Brighton County Court to the High Court after interim care orders had been made. No appeal is stated.