HA (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Final Order)

In care proceedings, the court must establish the threshold under Children Act 1989, section 31(2), and then determine the child’s welfare by scrutinising all realistic options. The child’s upbringing within the natural family is an important consideration, but it is not determinative. The court must weigh family relationships, wishes and feelings, safety, stability, cultural identity, education, therapeutic needs and the feasibility of proposed placements. A long-term foster placement may be ordered where it best meets the child’s welfare, even though it separates the child from the natural family, provided the legal relationship and appropriate contact are preserved where possible.

These were final care proceedings concerning an eight-year-old Lithuanian child who had lived in foster care after being accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Earlier judgments had resolved jurisdictional issues and declined to transfer the proceedings to Lithuania. The local authority sought a final care order, supported by the child’s guardian. The mother did not attend the final hearing and the adult previously registered as the child’s father confirmed that he was not the biological father and did not seek the child’s care.

The court considered return to the mother, placement with the maternal family or elsewhere in Lithuania, and continued long-term foster care in England. The central issue was which option best served the child’s welfare.

1. The court found the threshold criteria in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 satisfied. The mother’s lifestyle and erratic conduct had exposed the child to significant physical and emotional neglect and a likelihood of significant emotional harm.

2. In deciding the appropriate order, the child’s welfare was paramount under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The court also considered the welfare checklist in section 1(3), Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the guidance in Re B-S, [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. All realistic options had to be carefully scrutinised before making a final decision.

3. The court evaluated three alternatives: return to the mother, placement in Lithuania, and continued foster care in England. Upbringing within the natural family and preservation of the child’s Lithuanian culture were important benefits. They did not outweigh the risks of renewed neglect, the absence of a feasible Lithuanian family placement, the uncertainty surrounding alternative care in Lithuania, and the disruption of moving the child from a settled placement.

4. Continued long-term foster care offered safety, stability, therapeutic support, educational continuity and the prospect of meeting the child’s physical and emotional needs. The court accepted that separation from the natural family involved loss and cultural risks, but the legal relationship with the family would remain and regular contact with the mother should be supported.

5. A care order was therefore made on the basis of the local authority’s care plan. The local authority was directed to ensure therapeutic support and careful attention to the child’s cultural needs. The judgment transcript was to be paid for by the local authority.

This was a first-instance final decision. The judgment records earlier jurisdictional decisions in the same proceedings, including an Article 15 request to the Lithuanian court and a later conclusion that the English court should exercise jurisdiction. No appeal was determined in this judgment.