Wiltshire Council v F & Ors

In care proceedings, findings of fact must be based on evidence and properly drawn inferences, not suspicion or speculation. A child’s age may be determined from social-work evidence and does not necessarily require medical examination. Deception denying a child’s true identity and age is capable of causing significant emotional and psychological harm, even where physical care is good. The court must make the child’s welfare paramount and choose the least interventionist order that meets the child’s needs. Where continuing involvement is necessary to address identity, emotional harm and related practical difficulties, a supervision order may be preferable to either no order or removal from satisfactory care.

These care proceedings concerned a child whose identity, age and paternity had been concealed. The local authority initially sought findings and orders under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, but later accepted that the physical care provided by the respondents was good and sought a supervision order. The child’s guardian supported continued court involvement.

The central issues were the child’s age, the extent of the respondents’ deception, the harm caused, the likelihood of future harm, and the appropriate order.

1. The court found on the balance of probabilities that the child was 14 years old and should be treated as born on 26 April 1999. The court had jurisdiction to make an age declaration. Age could be assessed from social-work evidence without a medical examination, although here the court considered medical, social-work and factual evidence.
2. Findings of fact had to be based on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion or speculation. The court therefore confined its findings to matters established by the evidence.
3. The respondents had jointly deceived the child and the authorities by presenting the child as their son and as substantially younger than he was. The child was probably the first respondent’s brother. Further findings about the precise history of his care and the alleged preparation of documents could not safely be made.
4. The deception had caused significant emotional and psychological harm. Denying a child his true identity was likely to cause substantial damage, particularly where the child probably retained memories of his real identity. The harm was likely to continue unless the respondents began telling the truth. Counselling or psychotherapy might be required.
5. Applying sections 1 and 31 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare was paramount. The relevant welfare considerations included his background, emotional needs, past harm and likely future harm. A supervision order for 12 months was the least interventionist order meeting his needs. Removal was contrary to his welfare because his physical care and placement were satisfactory.
6. The residence order in favour of the respondents was renewed. A supervision order was made, with provision for life-story work, counselling or therapy, and assistance concerning immigration difficulties. Ancillary undertakings were ordered concerning a new birth certificate, passport, visa and immigration advice.

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