C (A Child : Care proceedings : Welfare)

In care proceedings, the court must determine welfare on the individual facts and apply the statutory welfare checklist. A care order is justified where the evidence shows that the child’s needs cannot safely or adequately be met in the proposed parental care, particularly where care has caused or exacerbated significant harm. Findings of fact must be made to the civil standard: the balance of probabilities. Contact may be limited where it causes distress or provides little direct benefit, but the child’s opportunity to maintain a connection with family, heritage and culture remains a relevant welfare consideration, subject to changing needs and best interests.

The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in respect of C, a fourteen-year-old child with profound disabilities. C had previously been subject to interim care proceedings and had been placed with specialist foster carers following findings concerning his mother’s care, including malnutrition and failure to follow medical advice. His health and development improved substantially in foster care.

The issues were whether a final care order was in C’s best interests and what level of contact with his mother should be permitted, including whether a proposed placement with relatives in Romania should be preferred.

1. The court made a care order. C’s welfare was best served by remaining in the specialist foster placement. The evidence established that his mother could not safely or adequately meet his complex needs and had failed to work with professionals. The court applied the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

2. Findings of fact in care proceedings are determined on the balance of probabilities. There is no intermediate standard permitting a finding that an event might have happened, as explained in Re B (Care Proceeding: Standard of Proof) [2008] 2 FLR 141. The court applied that standard to the findings concerning the mother’s conduct and its effect on C.

3. The court recognised the general presumption in favour of preserving life and the need to consider the individual child’s quality of life and interests, reflecting Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1991] Fam 33. Decisions concerning a child with severe disabilities must remain fact-specific.

4. Contact was reduced to one hour every six months, and no more than twice yearly. Contact had caused C distress and pain and had provided little demonstrable benefit. Nevertheless, C should retain an opportunity to maintain a connection with his family, heritage and culture. The arrangement remained subject to his changing needs, welfare and physical health, and could be reviewed if his mother continued to undermine the placement or harass the carers.

5. A move to Romania based largely on nationality would not serve C’s best interests. The proposed placement lacked an adequate direct assessment of C’s needs, sufficient detail about support, and a satisfactory transition plan.