MA (a Child: Care proceedings), Re

In care proceedings, a child should be brought up within the natural family wherever consistent with welfare. Adoption is an extreme measure and may be approved only where necessary, as a last resort, and when nothing else will do. Before placing a child away from both parents, the court must be satisfied that practical assistance and support cannot make parental care viable. Alleged harm by a proposed carer must be sufficiently serious to justify state intervention and a care or supervision order. The welfare evaluation must focus on the child’s needs, placement risks and whether those risks can be safely managed through appropriate support.

These were care proceedings concerning an eight-month-old child, MA. Her mother sought rehabilitation, while the local authority proposed that MA live with her father, MN, and her two older siblings.

The mother alleged that MN had physically abused the older children, coerced her into sexual intercourse and raped her. The court considered each parent’s ability to provide safe and consistent care, the allegations against MN, and the support required for any move to his care. The central issue was which placement best served MA’s welfare.

1. Family placement. Children should, consistently with their welfare, be brought up within their natural families. Adoption is an extreme measure, permissible only where necessary for the child’s protection, as a last resort and when nothing else will do. Before placing a child away from a parent, the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way for public authorities or other agencies to provide the assistance and support needed to make parental care possible. The court applied Re KD [1988] AC 806, Re W [1993] 2FLR 625, Re B [2013] UKSC 33, Re P (a child) EWCA Civ 963, Re G (a child) EWCA Civ 965 and Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.
2. Threshold. Harm must be sufficiently serious to justify state intervention and the making of a care or supervision order: Re MA (Care Threshold) [2010] 1FLR 431. The allegations against MN were not established. His earlier conduct was foolish but did not amount to significant emotional harm.
3. Welfare. MA would face a very considerable risk of serious harm if returned to her mother, owing to her inability to provide consistent and safe care when emotionally distressed and the risk of flight. MN had successfully cared for the older children. His remorse, insight and willingness to accept support made recurrence of the earlier relationship negligible. The appropriate direction of travel was placement with MN, subject to a managed plan.
4. Orders. MN was to be given parental responsibility. The interim care order was continued while the plan was developed. The mother’s contact was to reduce and could be withheld where welfare required. The local authorities were required to work jointly through coordinated plans, with reconsideration towards the end of November.