L (Children), Re

Removal of a child under an interim care order requires evidence of an imminent or immediate risk to the child’s safety, including safety understood in its wider sense. Chronic concerns, longstanding difficulties and gradual deterioration do not, without more, satisfy that demanding threshold. The court must balance the harm arising from remaining at home against the harm caused by removal. Although Children Act 1989, section 31A does not require a care plan for an interim care order, the court must have adequate information about the proposed placement, including its viability, timing and ability to meet the child’s particular needs. A suspended removal order is inappropriate where an achievable and suitable placement has not been evidenced and the likely distress or emotional damage of removal has not been properly assessed.

The local authority obtained interim care orders concerning two children. The order relating to PL, aged 11, was intended to lead to removal from the family home, but was suspended until a suitable longer-term foster placement could be identified. The appeal was brought against that order.

The family had been known to the local authority for several years because of chronic concerns about home conditions, parenting, mental health, supervision and the children’s behaviour. PL had significant autistic traits, although no formal diagnosis had been made. The children’s guardian considered psychological assessment crucial and recommended interim supervision rather than removal. The central issues were whether the evidence established the demanding threshold for removal under an interim care order and whether the order could properly be made without a viable placement proposal.

1. Appeal allowed. The interim care order relating to PL was discharged and an interim supervision order was made pending the matter returning to the Family Court.
2. In a chronic neglect case, the court must not remove a child under an interim care order unless the evidence establishes an imminent or immediate risk to the child’s safety. Safety may be understood in the widest sense, but chronic concerns, past failures to intervene and gradual deterioration did not establish that risk on the evidence.
3. The child’s welfare is paramount when an interim care order is considered. The court must balance the harm that may occur if the child remains at home against the harm caused by removal. This includes the risk of distress and emotional damage from a precipitate change of circumstances, particularly where the child has unusual or multiple needs and possible autistic traits.
4. Section 31A of the Children Act 1989 does not impose a statutory requirement to file a care plan for an interim care order, because section 31A(5) excludes interim care orders from the relevant references to a care order. That does not justify making an order without adequate information about the local authority’s proposed placement. The court must be able to assess whether a suitable placement is achievable, the likely timescale, and whether carers can meet the child’s needs and be properly equipped with relevant information.
5. The judge therefore erred by making a suspended removal order. There was no evidence that an appropriate placement could be identified, and the judge failed to take proper account of the guardian’s view that assessment was necessary before the child’s immediate placement needs could be evaluated. Lord Justice Underhill agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2016] EWCA Civ 1110. Appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Yelton in the [A] County Court and Family Court. The interim care order relating to PL was discharged and replaced by an interim supervision order.