LA v DG & Ors

In care proceedings, poverty, social deprivation and cultural background must be considered carefully, but they do not determine whether the statutory threshold is crossed or whether children should be returned. The court must assess whether the parents can provide good enough parenting within the children’s timescale. Welfare is paramount, and intervention must remain proportionate. The court must avoid social engineering: children must not be removed merely because they would be better off in foster care. Adoption without parental consent requires cogent justification because it is an extreme interference with family life. Where children have suffered serious neglect and remain at risk of further harm, a care order and, where justified by lifelong welfare needs, placement orders may be made.

The local authority sought care orders and initially sought placement orders for six children who had been removed from their parents’ care because of chronic neglect. The parents sought the children’s return, or alternatively long-term foster care. The children had suffered severe malnutrition, developmental delay and emotional deprivation. During the final hearing, the local authority revised its plan: the younger three children were to be placed for adoption, while the older three were to remain in long-term foster care. The central issues were whether the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was met, what orders best met each child’s welfare needs, and whether parental consent to placement for adoption should be dispensed with.

1. The threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were satisfied on the balance of probabilities. The evidence established significant past harm and a continuing risk of future significant harm arising from the parents’ inability, even with intensive support, to meet the children’s emotional and physical needs.

2. Each child’s welfare was paramount. The court had to consider the welfare checklist and proportionality, while guarding against social engineering. The relevant question was whether the parents could provide good enough parenting to any or all of the children within the children’s timescale, not whether the children would be materially better off in foster care.

3. A care order was required for all six children. Their developmental and emotional progress in foster care, their need for stability, the extent of the previous neglect, the parents’ precarious circumstances and the risk of regression demonstrated that no lesser order would meet their welfare needs.

4. The placement applications for the older three children were withdrawn. Placement orders were made for the younger three children. Under sections 1 and 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, parental consent was dispensed with because lifelong stability and security could only be achieved through adoptive placements, and the parents were unable to provide care or secure an alternative family placement.

5. The court endorsed direct parental contact for the older three children and pending placement for the younger three, subject to close monitoring, support and review. The children’s Roma heritage and sibling relationships were to be maintained where consistent with their welfare.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.