London Borough of Wandsworth v W

In care proceedings involving parental substance misuse, genuine motivation and success in a controlled environment do not by themselves establish that a child can safely remain in that parent’s care. The court must assess relapse risk in the community, including whether underlying conditions have been treated and whether necessary change can occur within the child’s timescale. The statutory 26-week period is not inflexible, but an extension requires a robust, evidence-based basis for believing that the parent can make and maintain the necessary changes. A planned move to a permanent alternative carer may be preferable to consolidating an attachment likely to be broken later through an unplanned and traumatic placement breakdown.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning a seven-month-old child whose mother had a long history of drug and alcohol misuse associated with a diagnosed personality disorder. The child had remained with her in a prison mother-and-baby unit for several months, during which she had abstained and provided good care.

The mother sought an adjournment, a residential placement or a supervision order so that the child could remain with her while she obtained treatment. The local authority and guardian supported placement with the paternal grandmother under a special guardianship order. The central issues were the likelihood of relapse after release, the availability and timing of effective treatment, and whether delay was consistent with the child’s welfare and timescale.

1. The threshold was satisfied and a special guardianship order was made in favour of the paternal grandmother. The child was not to remain in the mother’s care after her release.
2. The local authority bore the burden of proof. The standard was the balance of probabilities, applying Re B. The court also considered the welfare checklist under section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
3. The decisive issue was future risk. The mother’s abstinence in prison, genuine motivation, strong attachment to the child and good parenting in a structured setting were important positive factors. They did not establish that she could remain abstinent in the community.
4. The court accepted the psychiatric evidence that the mother’s substance misuse was closely connected with a moderate to severe, longstanding personality disorder. Effective risk reduction required assessment and intensive psychotherapy, together with acceptance of the diagnosis and sustained commitment. The necessary treatment and subsequent period of community abstinence could not realistically be completed within the child’s timescale.
5. The court applied the guidance in Re S: whether there was solid, evidence-based reason to believe that the parent was committed to change, could maintain that commitment, and could make the necessary changes within the child’s timescale. The first question was only partly satisfied; the evidence was against the mother on the second and third.
6. Section 32 of the Children Act 1989, as amended, required disposal without delay and in any event within 26 weeks, but the period was not inflexible. An extension could be justified in an appropriate case, including one involving drug addiction, where the evidence supported it. This was not such a case.
7. A direct return to the community, including residence with the maternal grandmother, created an unacceptable risk of relapse and instability. A hypothetical residential placement could not cure the problem without suitable assessment, treatment and evidence of progress. Planned placement with the paternal grandmother was therefore in the child’s best interests and avoided the greater harm of a later breakdown.