A London Borough v A & Ors

In determining children’s welfare, the court must assess both physical and emotional safety over the period for which protection is required. Good intentions and proposed safeguards may be insufficient where a parent lacks the inner conviction needed to maintain separation from a serious source of danger. The court may also take account of the emotional harm likely to arise from a child being brought up amid conflicting accounts of significant family events. Where risks cannot be effectively controlled over time, care and placement orders may be justified despite the substantial disadvantages of removing children from their family. Contact arrangements must remain directed to the child’s welfare and should be reconsidered if an adoption plan fails.

The local authority sought care orders for three siblings and placement orders for the two younger children. The proceedings followed the violent death of one child, for which the court had previously found the father responsible. The mother was not implicated, but she continued to doubt the finding and remained married to the father, while proposing safeguards if the children were returned to her care.

The court had previously adjourned the final decision to allow the mother to undertake therapy. At the final hearing, the issue was whether her position had changed sufficiently to protect the children physically and emotionally within their timescale.

1. Welfare assessment. The decision was governed by the best interests of each child, taking account of the welfare checklist and the children’s and parents’ rights to respect for family life.
2. Risk over time. The mother’s strengths, therapy, separation from the father and proposed support network were carefully considered. However, her views had not moved on in any meaningful way. She remained deeply sceptical of the finding that the father was responsible for the death and lacked the inner belief needed to enforce a lasting separation.
3. Physical and emotional safety. The risk posed by the father was of the utmost gravity. There were no effective measures capable of guaranteeing the children’s physical safety over the necessary period. The court also accepted that the children would suffer emotional harm if raised in an environment where the prevailing belief was that the father was innocent, while they were denied contact with him without an intelligible explanation.
4. Orders. The local authority’s care plans were approved and care orders were made for all three children. Having considered the Adoption and Children Act 2002, placement orders were made for the two younger children. Parental consent was dispensed with because the children’s welfare required it. A time-limited search for adopters was approved for J, alongside a search for long-term foster care. If no adoptive placement were found, the placement order would need to be discharged promptly.
5. Contact. No contact orders were made. The court indicated that, if J’s placement order were discharged, reasonable contact would have to be provided, and that supported occasional contact with the father might be beneficial.

• The father’s appeal against the earlier finding of fact was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 18 July 2012.
• Permission to appeal out of time concerning a later evidential issue was refused by McFarlane LJ on 14 December 2012, and the renewed application was dismissed on 11 February 2013.
• This judgment was a further first-instance judgment in the care and placement proceedings.