A City Council v M & Ors

In care proceedings, the threshold under Children Act 1989, section 31, is objective and does not require findings of parental culpability. The local authority bears the burden of proving disputed facts on the balance of probabilities. Findings must be grounded in evidence and properly drawn inferences, not suspicion or speculation. Evidence must be assessed in context and across the whole evidential picture rather than in separate compartments. Where the threshold is already crossed, additional findings may nevertheless be necessary to establish an accurate history, assess future risk and protect the child’s long-term welfare.

The local authority brought public law proceedings concerning a child whose infant sibling had died while the child’s mother was severely mentally ill. The threshold was accepted to be crossed. The court was asked to determine disputed facts about the child’s upbringing, the parents’ care, sexualised behaviour and boundaries in the home, the effect of the mother’s mental illness, and the risk of future significant harm.

All parties supported the child’s placement with her maternal aunt in another jurisdiction under a Special Guardianship Order. The court also considered the appropriate framework for contact with the mother and maternal grandparents.

1. Threshold and proof. The threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was crossed by the infant’s death and the risk arising from the mother’s severe mental illness. The test was objective and did not require findings of culpability. The local authority bore the burden of proving the disputed allegations on the balance of probabilities, as stated in Re B (Care Proceeding: Standard of Proof) [2008] 2 FLR 141 (paras [25], [28]).
2. Evidence-based fact finding. Findings had to be based on evidence, including properly drawn inferences, and not on suspicion or speculation. The principle stated in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 was applied. The court could assess the parents’ accounts alongside corroborative evidence from other witnesses and professionals (para [29]).
3. Holistic assessment. Evidence was to be evaluated in the context of the evidence as a whole. The court adopted the approach in Re U, Re B (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 567 and Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838, requiring an overview of the totality of the evidence rather than compartmentalised assessment (para [30]).
4. Findings and welfare framework. On the balance of probabilities, the court found that the child had experienced instability, inappropriate sexual boundaries, exposure to uninhibited sexual behaviour, emotional harm and the consequences of parental failure to obtain help for the mother’s deteriorating mental health. The child remained at risk of significant harm, particularly because the father could not provide appropriate care and the mother remained subject to a restricted hospital order. The placement with the maternal aunt was intended to be long-term and secure. Contact with the maternal grandparents was to be at the aunt’s discretion and directed by the child’s welfare needs (paras [47]–[58]).