A London Borough v A & Ors

In care proceedings, postponement may be justified where there is a real prospect that a parent will become able to protect the children within their timescale. Full acceptance of the court’s findings is not invariably required for reunification. Substantial and genuine acknowledgement of the danger posed by another parent, together with emotional distancing and protective action, may suffice. The court must balance the value of preserving family life against the disadvantages of delay and the prospects of change. A possibility of meaningful change may be sufficient, even where success is not probable, provided the risks of delay remain sustainable.

The local authority sought care orders for three siblings and placement orders for the two younger children. The applications followed a finding that the father had caused the fatal injuries to one child, while the mother had been exonerated. The mother opposed the orders and sought a postponement to undertake psychotherapy, arguing that she might then safely care for the children without the father’s involvement.

The central issue was whether there was a sufficient prospect of therapeutic change, within the children’s timescale, to justify deferring the decision despite the risks and disadvantages of delay.

1. Postponement. The court could defer the decision only if there was a real prospect of a different outcome. That depended on the mother’s state of mind and the criteria by which the court would assess whether reunification could safely occur.
2. Protective threshold. The mother’s unqualified acceptance of the findings was not an inflexible precondition to reunification. Full acceptance would be best for the children, but substantial and genuine acknowledgement that the father might be dangerous, combined with genuine emotional distancing from him, could provide sufficient protection.
3. Welfare evaluation. The court balanced the considerable disadvantages of delay against the value to the children of a lifelong relationship with their mother. The risks of delay were sustainable. Although the likelihood of sufficient change was low and success was far from certain, a chance of change was sufficient; it did not have to amount to a probability. The possibility was especially valuable given the mother’s otherwise strong parenting abilities.
4. The decision on the applications was postponed to 14 January 2013. The local authority was permitted to restore the matter at short notice if the mother failed to engage in therapy. The judge made clear that care and placement orders would then be made unless there was a wholesale change in the mother’s position.

The judgment records that the father’s appeal against the earlier finding of fact was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 18 July 2012. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.