X and Y (Children : Welfare: Fabricated Induced Illness)

In care proceedings, the court must treat the children’s welfare as paramount and must be satisfied that making an order is better for the children than making no order. Where serious findings establish that a parent has caused, or is likely to cause, significant harm, the court may place the children with the other parent and make supervision and contact orders tailored to the identified risks. Contact should preserve the parent-child relationship, but need not continue at a level that disrupts the children’s settled care. The arrangements should reflect the parent’s insight, the seriousness of the findings, the children’s need for stability, and the practical arrangements for supervision.

This was the welfare stage of care proceedings concerning two boys. In an earlier judgment dated 23 February 2018, the court found that the mother’s behaviour towards the younger child had caused, or was likely to cause, significant physical and emotional harm, including serious feeding difficulties, weight loss and unnecessary medical interventions. The children’s father was positively assessed as a carer, and the paternal grandparents were positively assessed as potential special guardians.

The parties agreed that the boys should live with their father. The court had to determine whether supervision orders were necessary, the duration of those orders, the appropriate level and supervision of the mother’s contact, and whether further findings should be made concerning alleged domestic violence.

1. The court applied Children Act 1989, s.1. The children’s welfare was the paramount consideration, and the court considered whether making an order would be better for them than making no order, having regard to the welfare checklist.

2. The court made a child arrangements order placing both boys in their father’s care. The threshold criteria were clearly crossed in relation to both children. The earlier findings concerning the mother’s behaviour towards Y established actual harm to Y and a likelihood of harm to X.

3. A supervision order for twelve months was necessary. The duration reflected the complexity of the local authority’s work, including life-story work, care planning, management of contact and assessment of possible future contact supervisors.

4. Contact with the mother should continue, but at a level consistent with the boys’ welfare and settled life with their father. The mother’s contact was to remain supervised, initially on specified dates and thereafter monthly for up to four hours. The court rejected a standard private-law contact arrangement because the mother lacked insight into the serious findings and remained a risk to the children.

5. Telephone contact should be child-focused. The boys could telephone their mother when they wished, with the father facilitating contact, rather than following a rigid timetable.

6. The court made no finding concerning the September 2017 domestic-violence allegation. It accepted the agreed findings concerning the other matters but considered it unnecessary to go further. The local authority was directed to update its care plans within seven days.

The judgment concerns the welfare stage of care proceedings. It refers to an earlier judgment dated 23 February 2018 in the same proceedings, but no appellate decision is stated.