E (A Child), Re

A local authority must independently assess and test information relied on in child-protection decisions. Repetition does not establish reliability. Important decisions require a balanced evidential assessment, particularly where removal from parental care is contemplated.

Accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 must be based on genuine, informed and properly obtained consent. It must not be used as compulsion in disguise. Where voluntary accommodation is inappropriate, the local authority should seek an emergency protection order or interim care order. Police protection is reserved for exceptional cases where immediate action is necessary.

Surrey County Council issued care proceedings concerning E, a medically complex child who was ventilator-dependent and cared for at home by her parents with professional support. The local authority alleged that the parents had damaged E’s ventilation equipment, misunderstood her medical needs, escalated clinical concerns and failed to maintain professional boundaries.

During a lengthy fact-finding hearing, after evidence from 22 witnesses, the local authority accepted that it could not establish the threshold criteria on the balance of probabilities and sought permission to withdraw the proceedings. The central issues became the evidential and decision-making failures surrounding E’s removal from her parents’ care and the use of section 20 accommodation.

1. Withdrawal and evidential failure. Permission was granted for Surrey County Council to withdraw the care proceedings. The evidence showed that allegations had been repeated and escalated without adequate checking of their factual foundation. The local authority and community health team failed to present a balanced account and did not sufficiently distinguish reliable evidence from speculation.
2. Removal from parental care. The local authority retains primary responsibility for safeguarding decisions and cannot abdicate that responsibility by accepting the views of health professionals without analysis. The decision to remove E on 28 February 2013 was not justified. The relevant risks were not immediate, the last equipment incident had occurred 17 days earlier, and the parents had continued to care for E without further incident.
3. Proper procedure. The local authority should have applied at short notice for an emergency protection order or interim care order, following the guidance in Re X [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam). Using section 20 in the face of an overt threat of police protection, reinforced by the presence of uniformed officers, circumvented the safeguards that a court application would provide.
4. Section 20 safeguards. Consistently with the guidance in Re CA (A Baby) [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam), a social worker must be satisfied that a parent has capacity to consent, is fully informed, and is consenting on reasonable and proportionate grounds. Consent must be fairly obtained, with regard to Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and sections 1–3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The process used here was unfair and effectively left the parents with no real choice.
5. Future decision-making. Information underpinning child-protection decisions should, where time permits, be reduced to writing before important meetings so that participants can assess its reliability. Statements for court proceedings should be based on contemporaneous records and present a balanced picture, as emphasised in Re C (Care: Contact) [2010] EWCA Civ 959.

First-instance care proceedings issued by Surrey County Council on 10 April 2013. The local authority was granted permission to withdraw them.