LA v MF

In care and placement proceedings, the children’s welfare requires careful balancing of family life, parental wishes, cultural identity, stability and the risk of future harm. A parent’s ability to provide day-to-day care does not answer whether the parent can protect children from significant harm. Where the evidential foundation for future risk is strong, the risk cannot be managed within the children’s timeframe, and no less radical order will sufficiently protect them, removal from parental care may be necessary and proportionate. A proposed placement with wider family or in another jurisdiction must be assessed by reference to the individual children’s welfare, including continuity, stability and their actual relationships. A placement order may be made where lifelong welfare requires it, even if prospective carers may later seek a different form of order.

The local authority sought care and placement orders concerning four children. The mother sought the return of the three younger children to her care, either in England or France, or placement with their maternal aunt in France. The father supported her position. The children had been accommodated after criminal convictions arising from violence and neglect within the family. The court had previously determined that it had jurisdiction, that the children were habitually resident in England when proceedings began, and that the threshold criteria were met. The welfare issues were whether the younger children could safely return to their mother, whether they should be placed with their wider family or in France, and whether their lifelong welfare required placement orders.

1. Care orders. The court made care orders for all four children. The welfare checklist under Children Act 1989, s 1(3), and the parties’ rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights required careful consideration of proportionality and whether a less radical order would suffice.
2. Risk to the younger children. The mother could provide committed and affectionate day-to-day care, and the children were attached to her. However, her changing and unreliable account, minimisation of abuse, lack of empathy and inability to recognise the risk created by the father established a strong and compelling risk of future significant harm. The risk could not be managed within the children’s timeframe. Support, counselling and social-services intervention would not provide sufficient protection, particularly in view of the uncertainty surrounding the mother’s social isolation and relationship with the father.
3. Proportionality. The court applied the principles identified in Re B (A Child) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] 2 FLR 923 and Re C and B (care order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611. The children’s wishes, their relationship with their mother and cultural considerations were important, but could not outweigh an unacceptable and unmanageable risk of future harm.
4. Alternative placements. Placement with the maternal aunt in France was rejected. The children did not know her, she had taken limited steps to establish contact or demonstrate insight into their needs, and the proposed move would be difficult, particularly for the emotionally fragile child. A placement in France was also rejected because continuity and stability with the existing carers, and placement of the siblings together, better served the children’s welfare. The court applied Re AB (BIIR: Care Proceedings) [2012] EWCA Civ 978 in holding that any international placement still required an independent welfare assessment.
5. Placement orders. Applying Re P (adoption; Parental Consent) [2008] 2 FCR 185, the court held that a dual plan did not prevent a placement order. The children’s lifelong welfare required placement orders and parental consent was dispensed with under s 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Direct contact with the mother was reduced to four times yearly under supervision, while contact with the father remained subject to further assessment.

The judgment records that the mother appealed the earlier jurisdiction decision. Permission was granted by Ward LJ, but the appeal was dismissed by the full court on 23 April 2013. The present judgment determined welfare and placement issues at first instance.