Kent County Council v IS & Ors

In care proceedings, the court must decide whether the statutory threshold is met and then determine what order best serves each child’s welfare. The local authority must prove significant harm or likelihood of harm on the balance of probabilities. Removal from parental care must be necessary and proportionate, but entrenched parental denial and the absence of any realistic prospect of change may justify care orders. Cultural identity, sibling relationships and proposed placement abroad are important but not determinative. Article 56 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 requires consultation and consent for an overseas placement but leaves the English court responsible for deciding welfare.

The local authority sought care orders for four children, a supervision order for their older brother, and placement orders for the two youngest children. The parents disputed the threshold criteria and sought rehabilitation or, alternatively, placement in Slovakia under Article 56 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003. The issues were whether the children had suffered, or were likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to parental care, what orders met their welfare needs, and whether placement in Slovakia was appropriate.

1. The threshold under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 was satisfied. The children had suffered significant harm attributable to parental care. The proved matters included poor school attendance, inadequate supervision, poor hygiene, inadequate care of the youngest child after birth, and excessive chastisement. Allegations concerning missed medical appointments and keeping one child from nursery were not proved.
2. The court applied the three-stage approach identified in In the matter of J (Children): whether there was harm or likelihood of harm, its attribution, and what would best serve the children. Welfare was paramount under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
3. Care orders were necessary for the four younger children. The parents’ entrenched denial of the concerns, inability to recognise deficits in their parenting, and lack of realistic prospect of change meant that returning the children would expose them to continuing harm. The orders were proportionate despite the impact on sibling relationships and cultural identity.
4. Placement in Slovakia was refused. Article 56 had a consultative function and did not restrict the English court’s independent welfare assessment. The proposed arrangements lacked sufficient certainty and would not meet the children’s welfare needs.
5. A supervision order was made for the older child. Placement orders were made for the two youngest children under section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, dispensing with parental consent. Direct contact was not to continue, but relationships could be supported through indirect contact and life-story work.