C (Children : phased rehabilitation)

In care proceedings, rehabilitation to parents may be approved despite serious previous harm where the evidence establishes that risk can be sufficiently minimised and managed. The children’s welfare remains paramount under Children Act 1989, section 1(3). The court must balance the risks of return against the benefits of upbringing within the natural family and the disadvantages of alternative placements. Safety remains essential. A phased rehabilitation programme, supported by effective monitoring, therapeutic work, extended-family support and safeguards, may justify care orders even where the parents previously caused serious injury and colluded in concealing it.

These were final care proceedings concerning two young children. One child had suffered serious injuries while in the father’s care, and both parents had falsely attributed them to an accident and continued to mislead professionals. The children had consequently lived separately with maternal relatives for about 18 months.

The local authority initially proposed special guardianship orders. Following a further psychological assessment, however, the evidence indicated that the parents had developed sufficient insight and that risk could be managed through a carefully structured rehabilitation programme. The central issue was whether the children could safely be returned to the parents under care orders and a phased care plan.

1. Outcome. The court approved the local authority’s care plans for phased rehabilitation of both children to the parents under care orders.
2. Under Children Act 1989, section 1(3), the children’s welfare was paramount. The court had to balance the risks inherent in returning vulnerable children to parents who had previously caused serious injury and concealed the truth against the benefits of upbringing within the natural family. It also had to consider the potential disadvantages of the alternative placements. Safety remained an essential consideration.
3. The expert psychological evidence was accepted. It showed, on balance, that both parents had developed a sufficient and genuine appreciation of what had gone wrong, including the violence, the collusion and the consequences of their dishonesty. The parents had also demonstrated a determination to prevent recurrence.
4. Risk could be sufficiently minimised and managed by phased rehabilitation, continued therapeutic work, couple counselling, frequent meetings, unannounced visits, extended-family support and respite arrangements. The mother was particularly required to act as a protective factor by reporting stress, tension or renewed concerns about the father.
5. The arrangements were subject to continuing professional oversight and were to be reviewed if there were significant backsliding or a failure to cooperate. The case was reserved to the judge, and the local authority undertook not to remove the children except in circumstances of urgency. A further failure by the parents would make another opportunity of rehabilitation very unlikely.