L (A Child), Re

In care proceedings concerning a child who had been trafficked into the United Kingdom, the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was crossed where the child had suffered, and was likely to suffer, significant harm arising from her experiences. The court must consider the child’s welfare and the available options under section 1. A care order is appropriate where the child’s needs can be met only through local-authority care. The care plan should address the child’s wishes and feelings, family and cultural links, specialist support for trafficking-related needs, social isolation, and immigration advice where those matters are relevant to the child’s welfare.

These first-instance care proceedings concerned L, a child brought unlawfully from Ghana and placed with unrelated adults. Her circumstances indicated that she had been a victim of child trafficking. Her parents could not be located, and she had remained in foster care under successive interim care orders.

The local authority sought a final care order with a plan for long-term fostering. The children’s guardian supported the plan, subject to additions concerning L’s wishes and feelings, possible supervised contact, links with her Ghanaian background, specialist trafficking support, an independent visitor, and immigration advice. The central issues were whether the statutory threshold was met, whether a care order was required, and what provisions should be included in the care plan.

1. Care order made. The court placed L in the care of A County Council and directed the local authority to file an amended care plan incorporating the guardian’s accepted proposals.
2. The threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was plainly crossed. L had suffered, and was likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of her experiences as a victim of child trafficking.
3. In deciding what order best served L’s welfare, the court considered the options under section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the principles identified by the Court of Appeal in Re BS. On the evidence, L’s needs could be met only by placing her in the care of the local authority.
4. The long-term fostering plan required supplementation. The amended plan was to address L’s wishes and feelings when selecting a placement; possible supervised contact with the adults with whom she had lived; restoration and nurturing of her Ghanaian links; specialist assistance in dealing with her trafficking experiences; an independent visitor to address social isolation; and support and advice concerning her immigration status, including funding for legal advice.
5. The court also declared that L’s date of birth was 22 May 2000. Permission was given for anonymised publication and disclosure of the judgment to the police and the Home Office for possible investigation and immigration purposes.

First-instance decision in the High Court (Family Division). No earlier appellate decision was stated in the judgment.