London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v C & Ors

In care proceedings, a child’s welfare remains paramount, but decisions must be based on proved evidence and a realistic assessment of each parent’s capacity to meet the child’s needs. A parent’s disability requires appropriate assessment, communication support and reasonable adjustments. Standard or unsuitable assessments may substantially prejudice the parent and distort welfare decisions. Where rehabilitation to a disabled parent is ordered, the local authority must provide a bespoke, properly resourced and flexible support package. Delay caused by inadequate assessment or planning may itself harm the child. Love alone does not establish parenting capacity. The court must distinguish genuine parenting deficits from difficulties capable of being addressed through appropriate support.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning A, born in August 2012. Earlier care and placement-for-adoption orders were set aside by the Court of Appeal and the matter was remitted for rehearing. Following a further incomplete hearing, the case came before the court for a combined threshold, fact-finding and welfare hearing.

The issues included whether the statutory threshold was crossed, the mother’s allegations against the father, A’s future placement, the necessary support package, contact and the appropriate legal framework. The local authority no longer pursued findings against the father and supported rehabilitation to him, subject to a supervision order and substantial bespoke support.

1. Threshold and fact-finding. The statutory threshold was established in respect of the mother. The likelihood of significant physical and emotional harm arose from her inability consistently to meet A’s basic and emotional needs, her vulnerability, and her inability to engage with support. The mother’s allegations against the father were rejected. The father’s admitted conduct in tapping the mother’s forehead to illustrate the BSL sign for “think” did not establish threshold.
2. Evidence. The court applied the balance of probabilities. A fact either happened or did not happen; suspicion and speculation could not establish a finding. Evidence had to be assessed in the context of the evidence as a whole, with expert opinion weighed alongside the other evidence. The mere fact that a person lied did not itself prove culpability.
3. Welfare. A’s welfare was paramount under Children Act 1989, s.1. The evidence showed that the mother could not safely care for A and lacked sufficient capacity to change. The father could meet A’s needs, but only with substantial, bespoke assistance addressing communication, parenting skills, deaf awareness, advocacy and contact.
4. Disability and local-authority duties. The father’s profound deafness required specialist assessment, suitable interpreters and reasonable adjustments. The local authority’s earlier failure to communicate with him, assess him appropriately and provide necessary support had caused serious prejudice and disproportionate delay. The rehabilitation plan could proceed only if the support package was robust, clear, properly funded and flexible.
5. Orders. The court approved rehabilitation to the father, with fortnightly supervised contact for the mother, and directed a supervision order with a child arrangements order for A to reside with her father. Because the care plan remained insufficiently clear and resourced, the orders made at this stage were interim and the matter was listed for final orders.

1. Court of Appeal: The earlier care and placement-for-adoption orders were set aside and the proceedings were remitted for rehearing in [2015] EWCA Civ 128.
2. High Court (Family Division): The rehearing established threshold in respect of the mother, rejected the allegations against the father, approved rehabilitation to the father and made interim orders pending finalisation of the support package.