MI (A Child), Re

In deciding whether a child should return to a parent, the court must determine whether there is a real possibility that the parent will provide care that is good enough to meet the child’s needs. The parent need not demonstrate faultless or exceptional parenting. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must take account of the statutory welfare factors, the child’s relationships, the likely effects of proposed changes, and the risks of harm. Where adequate care is reasonably possible, the court should not sever the parent-child relationship merely because alternative care may offer advantages. The court must also consider the child’s and parent’s family-life rights under Article 8.

The local authority sought a care order for MI, aged four and a half, following the death of his infant brother from injuries caused by his father. MI had lived in foster care since January 2012. The mother accepted shortcomings in her earlier parenting and her failure to protect the infant from the father, but sought MI’s return to her care.

The local authority and Children’s Guardian supported placement with MI’s maternal great uncle and aunt in Belgium. That plan involved substantial changes for MI and potentially the loss of direct contact with his mother because of her immigration position. The central issue was whether the mother could provide sufficiently safe and capable care throughout MI’s childhood.

1. Applicable standard. The child’s welfare was paramount. The court also had to respect the family-life rights of MI and his mother under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Applying the approach in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 at [50], the mother did not have to show that her parenting would be without blemish. The question was whether there was a real possibility that her care would be good enough to meet MI’s needs.
2. Welfare assessment. The court considered MI’s wishes and feelings, his physical, emotional and educational needs, the likely effect of each proposed change, his age and background, the harm suffered or risked, the capacities of the mother and Belgian relatives, and the range of powers available to the court. The assessment was not a simple comparison between the mother and the Belgian family. The court first considered whether the mother could care for MI adequately, and considered alternative placements only if she could not.
3. Application. MI required reliable routines, firm boundaries and consistent access to support. The mother’s earlier parenting had been inadequate, but the neglect was not malign and occurred when she was young, vulnerable and unsupported. Her contact with MI showed substantial warmth and several areas of progress, despite continuing weaknesses. The possibility of failure remained real, but the court narrowly concluded that there was a reasonable possibility that she could provide good enough care throughout his childhood.
4. The Belgian placement had significant strengths, but also involved major changes in relationships, surroundings and language and a real risk that MI would lose his relationship with his mother. Those disadvantages reinforced the conclusion that rehabilitation should be attempted.
5. The local authority was invited to prepare a revised care plan for MI to move in a planned manner to his mother’s care. A care order was made, with the local authority sharing parental responsibility and monitoring and supporting the placement. Any future application to remove MI from his mother’s care was directed to be referred to the judge initially if available.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.