J & MM (Children), Re

When deciding whether children should remain within their wider family, the court must treat their welfare as paramount and respect the family life of the children and adults. Removal is justified only where it is necessary and proportionate to the children’s welfare, having regard to whether any less intrusive arrangement would suffice.

A placement with relatives may be unsuitable where family loyalties, unrealistic hopes of reunification, geographical proximity and lack of candour create built-in instability. The court must assess whether the proposed carers can provide a sustainable placement and protect the children from pressures that undermine the care plan.

A local authority applied for care orders concerning two sisters, aged nine and nearly four. Following a fact-finding hearing, the court had found that their parents had caused significant harm to the elder child through reckless and incompetent management of her asthma.

The children had been placed with their maternal grandparents, and special guardianship orders had been anticipated. Shortly before the final hearing, evidence emerged of unauthorised contact between the children and their parents, followed by denials and a later admission. The local authority revised its plan to remove both children to foster care. The central issue was whether the grandparents could provide a safe and sustainable long-term placement.

The court made care orders in relation to both children and approved the local authority’s revised care plans.

1. The children’s welfare was paramount. The court also respected the family-life rights of the children and adults. Interference with those rights required a necessary and proportionate justification based on the children’s welfare.
2. The parents could not presently meet the children’s needs. Their therapy and outward acceptance of the findings represented only the beginning of a process, and did not establish a significant and reliable change.
3. The grandparents provided good daily care and were devoted to the children. However, the evidence showed that they could not offer a sustainable long-term placement. The adults and children continued to regard reunification with the parents as the proper outcome. This created built-in instability, particularly because of the close geographical and psychological relationship between the grandparents and parents.
4. The grandparents’ lack of candour and inability reliably to place the children’s needs above family loyalties meant that the local authority could not rely on them to protect the children or comply with the arrangements. The unauthorised contact was not an isolated mistake but a consequence of the family’s underlying beliefs.
5. Placement away from the family was therefore necessary to provide both children with an environment free from the pressures and unrealistic expectations that made the grandparents’ placement unworkable. J was to remain in long-term foster care. MM’s future was to be urgently assessed, including whether a placement application should be made. Contact with the parents and grandparents was to be progressively reduced in accordance with the care plans.

This was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). The judgment records an earlier fact-finding judgment in the same proceedings, reported at [2012] EWHC 2969 (Fam).