Leicestershire County Council v AB & Ors

In care proceedings, the court must evaluate the realistic welfare options holistically rather than linearly. Adoption against a parent’s wishes is permissible only where it is necessary and proportionate, and nothing else will do. The court must assess the children’s welfare throughout their lives, including the risks of further emotional or psychological harm and the benefits of a stable alternative placement. Where the welfare interests of children and parents under Article 8 conflict, the children’s rights prevail. A Re B-S evaluation requires careful comparison of the realistic options, but does not require the court to pursue an unrealistic rehabilitation plan. A section 34(4) order may properly relieve a local authority of its duty to promote parental contact where the risks are exceptionally grave, while leaving future contact possible if circumstances change.

Leicestershire County Council brought public law care proceedings concerning three children after their parents were arrested. The children had been accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and were later made subject to interim care orders. The parents were convicted of modern slavery offences, and the father was also convicted of rape.

The threshold criteria were conceded. The issues were the appropriate long-term care arrangements, whether the two younger children should be placed for adoption despite their mother’s opposition, and the future arrangements for contact with the parents and between the siblings.

1. Findings and welfare assessment. The court found that the father and mother had subjected GH to cruel and degrading treatment, that GH had been exposed to inappropriate sexual conduct, and that the mother had repeatedly failed to protect her. IJ and KL had suffered significant emotional harm by witnessing the abuse and ill-treatment. The court applied the balance of probabilities and a revised Lucas direction.
2. GH. No realistic family placement was advanced. Long-term foster care was therefore the only viable option and was in GH’s welfare interests. The court directed that the care plan should provide for sibling contact four to six times yearly for one to two hours, subject to the priority of securing an adoptive placement for IJ and KL. It made a Re B-S holistic evaluation of the realistic options.
3. IJ and KL. Waiting in foster care until the mother’s earliest release date, with a possible later rehabilitation, was not a realistic or welfare-promoting plan. The mother’s grave parental failings, lack of insight and the high risk of further emotional and psychological harm meant that adoption was the only option meeting their welfare interests. The adoption plan was necessary and proportionate, and nothing else would do.
4. Contact. In light of the father’s repeated abuse, denial of responsibility and manipulative conduct, direct or indirect contact with GH was contrary to her welfare. Under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989, the local authority was relieved of its duty to promote contact, although professionals could arrange contact in future if it became welfare-promoting. Contact with the paternal grandmother was permitted only under strict supervision and review.
5. Orders. Care orders were made for all three children. Placement orders were made for IJ and KL, and the consent of both parents was dispensed with under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The case was also to be referred for a Serious Case Review.