The London Borough of Brent v D & Ors (Compliance with Guidelines on Judges Meeting Children)

When deciding whether to make a final care order, the court must be satisfied that the threshold criteria are met and that the order is in the child’s best interests and proportionate. A mature child’s wishes and feelings may carry significant weight, but they are not determinative. The court must obtain a sufficiently clear picture of the proposed care arrangements, including other aspects of a care plan where the child’s welfare requires it.

Requests for a judge to meet a child should ordinarily be addressed at the issues resolution hearing. The preparatory requirements in the Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children who are Subject to Family Proceedings must be followed. Case management orders and bundle-filing requirements must be complied with strictly, subject to remedies that do not prejudice the welfare of the children.

The London Borough of Brent applied for final care orders concerning three children aged 14, 15 and 16. The children’s parents lived in the United States, while the children lived with paternal relatives or in residential care. The parties largely agreed the proposed care plans, including rehabilitation of two children and continued placement of one child with a paternal relative.

The remaining welfare issue concerned the timing of one child’s rehabilitation. The judgment also addressed failures to comply with the guidelines governing judicial meetings with children, case management directions and the bundle requirements in PD27A.

1. Final care orders. The threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 were agreed. Having regard to the welfare checklist, the court was satisfied that final care orders based on the amended care plans were in each child’s best interests and proportionate.
2. Wishes and feelings. The wishes and feelings of the children, having regard to their ages and understanding, were entitled to significant weight. They were not determinative. The court retained responsibility for deciding what best served each child’s welfare.
3. Care plans. The court was required principally to scrutinise the permanence provisions, but could consider other aspects of a care plan where the child’s individual needs made that necessary. A final care order was appropriate where the court had a sufficiently clear picture of the way forward. The court was satisfied that this test was met for all three children, including the staged rehabilitation plan for M.
4. Meeting children. The 2010 Guidelines require the child’s representatives to address the child’s wishes, the purpose of the proposed meeting, its welfare justification and the perceived purpose from the representatives’ perspective. The other parties must have an opportunity to make representations. If a meeting is ordered, arrangements concerning its purpose, timing, location, preparation, attendance and recording must be settled. The meeting is not an occasion for gathering evidence.
5. As a starting point, the question whether a judge should meet a child should ordinarily be raised and determined at the issues resolution hearing. If the request arises later, the required steps should begin immediately. Leaving arrangements until the hearing risks confusion and upset and is contrary to the child’s best interests.
6. Compliance. Case management orders are essential to the fair administration of justice and to avoiding delay. The court must mark non-compliance, but remedies must be balanced against the welfare of the children. In this case, summoning the local authority solicitor to explain the defaults was sufficient.
7. Paragraph 6.4 of PD27A governed the lodging of bundles for Family Court and Family Division hearings. Paragraph 8(1) did not relax the requirement that bundles be lodged two clear days before the hearing.

Final care orders were made in respect of all three children and their care plans were approved.