A Council v M & Ors (Judgment 2: Welfare)

In determining a child’s welfare, the court must prioritise the child’s need for safety, stability and appropriate care while respecting existing family life. A further assessment is unnecessary where the court has sufficient information, delay would prejudice the child, and a favourable outcome is practically unrealistic. Direct parental contact may be withheld where contact is harmful or undermines a necessary permanent placement. Restrictions on future applications are exceptional and should be imposed only where necessary; less restrictive case-management directions may suffice.

This was a welfare judgment in care proceedings concerning two children, B and C, following an earlier fact-finding judgment concerning the family. The court considered C’s future placement, contact with her mother and siblings, the mother’s application for a further assessment, and whether future applications should be restricted. It also determined consequential arrangements for B, who was to remain a ward until attaining adulthood.

1. Further assessment. The application under Children Act section 38(6) was dismissed. C required an urgent decision, stability and therapeutic support. The court had ample information about the family situation, and the prospects of a favourable assessment outcome were, for practical purposes, discounted.
2. Placement and welfare. C’s welfare required a permanent long-term foster placement. The mother remained a significant risk to a dependent child and there was no foreseeable prospect of her parenting C safely. The court therefore approved the care plan and made a final Care Order in favour of the local authority.
3. Parental contact. Contact between C and her mother was not currently in C’s interests. A substantial gap, probably six to twelve months, was necessary to allow C to settle and understand that she would not return to her mother’s care. Under Children Act section 34(4), the local authority was permitted to withhold maternal contact, subject to the agreed framework for possible resumption.
4. Sibling contact. Contact with A and D was to continue approximately monthly. Contact with B was also to be approximately monthly, reflecting the different relationships and risks. The arrangements remained subject to review and possible progressive relaxation.
5. Future applications. An order under Children Act section 91(14) was refused. Such an order was an exceptional step and was unnecessary because future applications were reserved to the judge, and applications by M before 1 October 2013 were to be referred to him before service. Permission to proceed would ordinarily require a significant change of circumstances or another sufficient reason.
6. B was to remain a ward until eighteen, subject to directions concerning residence, travel, information-sharing and parental involvement.