ABCDE, Re

Permission to withdraw care proceedings must be granted where the local authority cannot establish the threshold criteria in Children Act 1989, section 31(2). Alleged extremist beliefs, however serious, do not establish significant harm without evidence linking those beliefs to actual or likely harm attributable to the parental care. The likelihood of significant harm requires a real possibility which cannot sensibly be ignored in light of the nature and gravity of the feared harm.

Local authorities must scrutinise and analyse their evidence, comply with the overriding objective, and confine issues and evidence to what is reasonably necessary. Costs orders remain unusual in children proceedings, but may be made where conduct is reprehensible or unreasonable. A late change of position does not, without more, justify costs.

A local authority applied for permission to withdraw care proceedings concerning five children. The proceedings arose from alleged extremist beliefs held by the parents, the father’s former terrorism prevention and investigation measure, and additional welfare allegations concerning one child.

The application was supported by all parties. The parents sought costs for the period after the court had directed the local authority to reconsider its threshold case. The central issues were whether the local authority could establish actual or likely significant harm under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, whether permission to withdraw was required, and whether the local authority’s conduct justified a costs order.

1. Withdrawal. Permission was granted to withdraw the care proceedings concerning all five children. The court had made no findings of fact. Even if findings could have been made about the father’s beliefs and behaviour, and possibly about the mother’s beliefs, the local authority could not establish the necessary connection between those matters and the children’s presentation to social care, health or education professionals.
2. Under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, the local authority had to prove that the children had suffered, or were likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to the care given or likely to be given by the parents. There was no evidence that any child held extremist beliefs, had been radicalised, or had suffered significant emotional harm. The additional allegations concerning Child A were also insufficient, including the allegations concerning education, parental comments and the consequences of the TPIM.
3. The court applied the approach summarised in A Local Authority v X, Y and Z (Permission to Withdraw) [2017] EWHC 3741 (Fam). Where the local authority cannot satisfy the threshold, permission to withdraw must succeed. Where the position is uncertain, the court should first consider whether fact-finding is necessary and proportionate, applying the factors identified in A County Council v DP, RS, BS (By the Children’s Guardian) [2005] 2 FLR 1031, and then cross-check the conclusion against the child’s welfare.
4. The real possibility of likely significant harm must be a possibility which cannot sensibly be ignored, having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm, applying Re H and Others (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80.
5. Costs. The parents’ applications for costs were refused. The local authority’s duties under the Children Act 1989 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 did not relieve it of the obligation to analyse the evidential basis for its threshold case. Nevertheless, the local authority reconsidered its position before evidence was called and withdrew promptly after the court identified the forensic difficulty. Its conduct did not justify a costs order.
6. The amount claimed is part of the circumstances relevant to a just costs decision. Parties seeking costs in children proceedings should pragmatically provide a schedule following the approach in paragraph 9.5 of CPR Practice Direction 44, allowing the opposing party reasonable time to respond.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier consolidated care proceedings and related proceedings in the Administrative Court, but no appeal from a lower decision was determined.