The London Borough of Croydon v BU & Ors

In determining a child’s welfare, the court must treat welfare as paramount and give proper regard to the statutory welfare checklist. The child’s wishes and feelings, stability, security, therapeutic needs and the quality of proposed care are central considerations. Where the child’s Article 8 rights conflict with those of adult family members, the child’s rights prevail. Family contact may properly be reduced and supervised where the child is vulnerable, the contact risks destabilising the placement or therapy, or adults may communicate damaging conflict. A care order and a no-contact order may be made where they promote the child’s welfare, while future contact can remain subject to review.

The local authority sought a care order for a seven-year-old child whose mother had been killed by her father in the child’s presence. The child was living successfully with foster carers and wished to remain there. The local authority proposed long-term foster care, supervised contact with maternal relatives at reduced frequency, and no contact with the imprisoned father unless professionals later considered contact safe.

The maternal grandparents opposed the proposed reduction in contact. No family member continued to seek long-term care of the child by the conclusion of the hearing. The central issues were whether long-term foster care was in the child’s welfare best interests and what contact arrangements should be made.

1. Orders. The court approved the revised final care plan, made a care order in favour of the local authority, approved the proposed supervised contact regime, and made a no-contact order under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 in respect of the father.
2. Welfare. The threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 were satisfied. The child’s consistent and genuine wish to remain with her foster carers was supported by the professional evidence. Long-term foster care was plainly in her welfare best interests, having regard to her need for legal security, stability, consistency and therapeutic support.
3. Rights and family care. The court applied the paramountcy principle in section 1(1), considered the welfare checklist in section 1(3), and took account of the parties’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights. Where the child’s Article 8 rights conflict with those of adult family members, the child’s rights prevail, applying Yousef v The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210. The general preference for care by natural family did not outweigh the child’s specific welfare needs.
4. Contact. Monthly contact with the grandparents would have been excessive and potentially overbearing during an intense phase of therapy. Bi-monthly contact was proportionate and consistent with the child’s wishes. Supervision was necessary because of the child’s vulnerability, entrenched family hostility, hostility towards the foster carers, and the grandmother’s lack of insight into what was appropriate to communicate to the child.
5. The section 34(4) order removed the local authority’s statutory duty to promote contact with the father, but did not prevent agreement to future contact if professionals later considered it beneficial. A section 91(14) order was unnecessary; future applications were reserved to the judge.

The judgment records that the Court of Appeal allowed the maternal grandmother’s appeal on 31 January 2014 to the limited extent that she was joined as a party and permitted to address contact and oppose other family members’ care applications. The present judgment determined the care and contact issues at first instance.