B & Ors (Children), Re

In care proceedings, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. The court must evaluate each realistic placement option holistically, giving proper weight to the child’s rights and directly comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the options where appropriate. The court must identify the harm or likelihood of harm, its attribution, and what will best serve the child’s welfare. Any order must be necessary and proportionate, and must be better for the child than making no order. A placement may properly remain in residential care where the evidence shows that it meets the child’s needs more reliably than a proposed family placement.

These were care proceedings concerning three children. The parents agreed that the threshold criteria were established and no longer opposed the proposed placements for two of the children. The remaining dispute concerned whether the eldest child, a vulnerable 14-year-old, should move from a settled residential placement to the care of her maternal grandmother. The court also considered the proposed special guardianship placements for the two younger children and the appropriate supervisory arrangements. The central welfare issue was which available placement best met the eldest child’s needs.

1. The court applied Children Act 1989, section 1. The children’s welfare was paramount. Delay was relevant, and an order could be made only where it was better for the child than making no order. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) had to be considered insofar as relevant.
2. The court adopted the holistic and comparative approach described in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965. The placement options had to be evaluated in a balanced way, including their respective advantages, disadvantages, risks and likely effects on the child.
3. The court also applied the structured approach in Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227: identify the harm or likelihood of harm; identify what the harm is attributable to; determine what is best for the child; evaluate each available placement; select the best option; and decide whether any order is necessary and proportionate. The local authority had to provide sufficient evidence about the services available and practicable under each proposed placement and order.
4. In relation to Ro, the evidence established that she was highly vulnerable, functioned below her chronological age, and required consistent care, boundaries, supervision and carers who understood the risks arising from her behaviour. Her maternal grandmother’s relationship with her was positive and her wishes favoured the family placement. However, the grandmother’s complete denial of Ro’s established behavioural difficulties showed that she lacked the insight required to meet Ro’s needs.
5. The residential placement had provided a positive and structured environment. Although unusual and time-limited, it met Ro’s needs as well as, and consistently with, any available alternative. Continued residential placement under a final care order was therefore necessary and proportionate.
6. Special guardianship orders were made for Rh and C in favour of their paternal aunt and her partner, with supervision orders in favour of the local authority. A care order was made for Ro and the care plan for her continued placement was approved. Contact arrangements were approved, with possible future relaxation of supervision for contact between Ro and her maternal grandmother subject to review.