C (A Child)

In care proceedings, a parent’s mental illness or historic violence is not, by itself, an automatic bar to care. The court must assess current risk of significant harm by reference to proven facts and the evidence on whether that risk can be managed. A favourable parenting assessment of a relative does not answer whether the relative can protect the child from parental risk. A specific risk assessment is required. Where proposed carers lack insight into the risk, safeguards or support may be insufficient. A placement or adoption order requires a careful welfare and proportionality evaluation, with adoption treated as a last resort. Fresh evidence on appeal warrants reconsideration only where it adds material information sufficient to justify re-examination.

JC, aged 12 months at the hearing, was the subject of care proceedings concerning the risk posed by her father, who was subject to a section 41 hospital order under the Mental Health Act. The parents appealed against care and placement orders made by Her Honour Judge Atkinson in the Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court on 24 October 2014. The central issues were whether the risk could be managed if JC lived with her parents or maternal grandmother, whether the grandmother could protect her, and whether the absence of full written medical reports and subsequent evidence undermined the decision.

Lady Justice King gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Arden agreed. The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

1. The trial judge had correctly directed herself that the father’s diagnoses and historic violent offence did not automatically prevent him caring for JC. The relevant question was whether he currently presented a risk of significant harm, and any prediction of future harm had to be founded on proven facts. The evidence supported findings that his stability depended on medication, regulation and supervision, while his enduring personality disorder created a continuing risk of planned aggression even when he was free from psychosis.
2. The judge was entitled to find that the mother could not act as a protective factor and that the grandmother could not protect JC from the father’s risk. The grandmother’s favourable assessment concerned practical parenting skills, not risk. The subsequent risk assessment, together with findings of illicit contact, concealment and lack of insight, justified the conclusion that the risk could not safely be managed through safeguards or support.
3. The judge had carried out the welfare analysis associated with the Re BS exercise. She considered the available placements, JC’s welfare history and best interests, and the proportionality of the interference with family life under Article 8. Adoption was treated as a last resort, and the conclusion that it was proportionate was open to her on the evidence.
4. The absence of a full written report from the treating team did not invalidate the decision. The judge had up-to-date medical information through Dr Castle, including the team’s opposition to discharge from the Mental Health Act section 41 hospital order and its view that relapse risk would increase without that framework. The issue was actual risk, not merely whether the team would provide support if the court permitted family placement.
5. The fresh character evidence, abduction statements and November 2014 clinical minutes did not justify re-examination. Applying the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, the new material either added nothing material, confirmed the trial findings, or remained conditional and dependent on further assessment. The grounds of appeal therefore failed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2015] EWCA Civ 221, the court dismissed the appeal against the care and placement orders.
2. Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court — On 24 October 2014, Her Honour Judge Atkinson made care and placement orders after concluding that the risk to JC could not safely be managed within placements with either parent or the maternal grandmother.