O, (A Child), Re (application for a final care order- child having family in Nigeria-whether there should be further assessment) No 1

In care proceedings, threshold findings must be based on evidence proved on the balance of probabilities, rather than allegation, suspicion or speculation. The facts relied upon must be linked to the statutory threshold. If threshold is crossed, the court must conduct a welfare evaluation giving paramount consideration to the child’s welfare and applying proportionality. Where a child has family abroad, the local authority must actively promote family life and properly assess realistic family placements. An inadequate connected-person assessment, or failure to address serious family conflict identified in an assessment, may require further work before a final placement decision is made. Delay remains important, but the court should not make a final order while a potentially viable family placement has not been adequately explored.

Leicester City Council applied for a care order in respect of an 11-year-old Nigerian child who had entered care after her mother, during a relapse in her mental illness, behaved in a threatening and physically abusive manner. The child wished to remain in foster care in England. Her mother proposed relocation to the United States, while her father proposed caring for her in Nigeria. The maternal grandparents were also potential carers in Nigeria.

The threshold allegations were largely conceded or proved, but the welfare decision raised questions about the mother’s capacity, the father’s circumstances, the adequacy of the grandparents’ viability assessment, the long-standing conflict between the maternal and paternal families, the child’s cultural ties, and the uncertainty of her immigration position. The central issue was whether a final care order should be made before the family placements and necessary reunification work had been properly investigated.

1. Threshold. The local authority established the threshold under Children Act 1989, s 31(2), on the balance of probabilities. Findings had to be based on evidence rather than suspicion or speculation, and the facts relied upon had to be linked to the statutory risk of significant harm. The threshold document was to be amended to reflect that the mother’s harmful conduct occurred during significant mental illness and was not intentional.
2. Welfare and proportionality. The child’s welfare was paramount under s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. The court had to consider the child’s wishes and feelings, family relationships, cultural identity and the competing risks of each placement. Articles 6 and 8 ECHR rights were engaged. Any interference with family life had to be necessary and proportionate.
3. Mother and father. Placement with the mother in the United States was rejected because the proposal was vague, untested and insufficiently focused on the child’s needs. Placement with the father in Nigeria could not safely be approved at that stage. The unresolved hostility between the maternal and paternal families, together with the unresolved parental relationship and the father’s past alcohol misuse, created a risk of significant emotional harm.
4. Further assessment. The maternal grandparents’ viability assessment was inadequate. It had been conducted remotely, with limited exploration of their understanding of the mother’s mental health, the proceedings and the local authority’s concerns. A full connected-person assessment was required. The local authority had also failed to act on the recommendation that work be undertaken to address the family feud. That failure was inconsistent with its positive obligation to promote family life and seek reunification where possible.
5. Disposition. Long-term foster care remained a possible outcome, but the court was not prepared to make a final decision while a potentially viable placement within the child’s family had not been properly explored. The interim care arrangements were to continue for a further period of three months. Urgent assessment of the grandparents, work with the family, age-appropriate work with the child, further investigation of the father’s alcohol history, immigration advice and clarification of the foster placement were directed.