Surrey County Council v AB & Ors

Where parties agree a child’s long-term care arrangements, the court must independently determine whether the agreement meets the child’s welfare needs. A contested threshold trial may properly be avoided where it would serve no demonstrable welfare purpose and would risk damaging a necessary working relationship. In exceptional circumstances, care proceedings may be withdrawn and the court may invite proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction to provide short-term welfare oversight, subject to the limits imposed by the Children Act 1989.

Surrey County Council issued care proceedings concerning X, a young child with complex health needs who had remained with foster carers under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The parents challenged the adequacy and delay of the local authority’s assessments and its early focus on permanent placement away from the family.

During the final hearing, the parties agreed that X should remain with his current carers under a special guardianship order, with extended family contact. They also agreed that the local authority would not pursue threshold findings and would withdraw the care proceedings. The issues were whether the arrangements met X’s welfare needs and what legal framework should govern a further hearing intended to support the transition to the agreed arrangements.

1. Welfare and agreed arrangements. The court’s duty remained to consider independently whether the agreement was consistent with X’s welfare, which was paramount. The comprehensive later assessments, supported by independent scrutiny, established that the parents could not care for X full-time, even with extensive support. An SGO in favour of the current carers would provide stability and give them parental responsibility. The agreed support and contact package was endorsed.
2. Withdrawal of care proceedings. The local authority’s agreement not to pursue threshold findings and to withdraw the proceedings made it inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the agreement to determine threshold, even at the lower level required for an interim supervision order. A contested trial would have had no demonstrable welfare purpose and risked undermining the parties’ future working relationship. The court was not prepared to conclude summarily that threshold could not have been established, but that issue did not need to be tried.
3. Inherent jurisdiction. In the unusual circumstances, the court followed the contextual approach in Re K (Children) [2012] EWHC LS09C05566. The care proceedings should be withdrawn, with one party invited to issue proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction and the other parties joined, so that the court could retain limited welfare oversight. This did not amount to an adjournment or wholesale review of settled care arrangements.
4. Statutory limits. Section 100 of the Children Act 1989 constrained the use of the inherent jurisdiction, but did not prevent the proposed consensual framework because the local authority was not seeking to compel the parents to relinquish parental responsibility.
5. The court recorded serious systemic failures by the local authority, including delay, inadequate assessment, ineffective supervision and failure to maintain an open mind about placement. These observations were made without findings on disputed factual allegations and with recognition that not all evidence had been heard.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier case-management hearings in the County Court and High Court, including transfer to the High Court, but no appellate decision.