A Local Authority v M & Ors

In determining the placement of children subject to care proceedings, the court must undertake a rigorous, case-specific comparison of the realistic options. It must evaluate the benefits and detriments of each option, consider proportionality under article 8, and require a care plan capable of addressing the identified risks. A local authority cannot justify a more interventionist placement merely because it is unwilling or unable to provide support for a less interventionist option. The court must decide welfare on the evidence, while ensuring that any reunification plan is sufficiently clear, coordinated and practically implementable.

This was the final welfare decision concerning four children following an earlier fact-finding judgment in the same proceedings. The children had been exposed to, and at least three had adopted, extremist and radical views associated with their mother. The mother was imprisoned and was assessed as continuing to pose a serious risk. The dispute was whether the children should return progressively to the care of their father with intensive support, or remain in long-term foster care.

The central questions were whether the father could protect the children from renewed radicalisation, whether the risks could be managed through a structured support package, and which placement was proportionate and best served each child’s welfare.

1. Placement and outcome. The children were much more likely to thrive and mature properly in their father’s care than in an unidentified foster placement. They were therefore to be progressively rehabilitated into his care over approximately three to six months.
2. Welfare and proportionality. The welfare of each child was paramount. Consistently with Y v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 33 and Re B (A child) (2013) UKSC 33, family ties should be preserved unless severance was required by exceptional circumstances and the child’s welfare. The court had to undertake the rigorous comparative analysis required by Re B-S (Children) (2013) EWCA Civ 1146.
3. Comparative evaluation. Applying the guidance in W (a child) v Neath Port Talbot Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, each realistic placement option had to be evaluated in sufficient detail, including its internal advantages and disadvantages, and then compared with the alternatives. A mechanical recitation of the welfare checklist was insufficient.
4. Local authority support. The local authority had to identify the practicable services required to make the proportionate option work. Resource constraints could not justify a more drastic order where adequate support for reunification was required to manage the identified risks.
5. Risk management. The children required coordinated and probably long-term assistance, mainstream schooling, suitable religious and cultural guidance, and professional supervision of contact with the mother and her family. The father required clear signposting, mentoring and culturally appropriate support so that he could recognise and respond to warning signs. The plan had to be agreed urgently, with identified professionals, responsibilities and a timetable.