Gloucester County Council v JD & Ors (Child Arrangements

In determining child arrangements, the children’s welfare is paramount. A placement with a parent and that parent’s partner may be ordered where the evidence shows that it best promotes the children’s welfare and no realistic alternative is identified. Where a parent poses a risk of physical or emotional harm, direct contact may properly be restricted to supervised contact, while preserving the relationship where safe. A child arrangements order specifying that children live with a person confers parental responsibility on that person under the Children Act 1989. The court may also limit how another person exercises parental responsibility and make arrangements intended to operate across borders.

The local authority sought child arrangements orders for two young children who had suffered serious injuries, including injuries caused by their mother. The mother’s risk had not been fully assessed because she had not attended a psychological assessment. The children’s father and his partner had undergone positive social work assessments in Portugal.

The application concerned whether the children should live with the father and his partner in Portugal, the extent to which the mother’s parental responsibility should be restricted, and the arrangements for her continuing contact with the children.

1. The children’s welfare was the paramount consideration. The court considered the children’s relationship with each parent, the welfare checklist and the no-order principle. The evidence unerringly supported the children living together with the father and his partner, who were able to meet their needs and posed little or no risk. No other realistic option had been presented.
2. The mother’s established responsibility for some injuries, possible responsibility for earlier serious injuries, and lack of psychological assessment meant that she was not presently a suitable carer. The risks she posed justified limiting contact to supervised contact. The court nevertheless considered that maintaining a relationship with her was in the children’s welfare, subject to safeguards.
3. The proposed child arrangements order was approved. It provided for the children to live with the father and his partner, with supervised direct contact with the mother and indirect contact by cards, letters and social media. Supervision was particularly important while the children remained very young and had to be undertaken by a person able to protect them from physical or emotional harm.
4. The order specifying that the children live with the father’s partner conferred parental responsibility on her under section 12(2) of the Children Act 1989. The court also confirmed the father’s parental responsibility for both children. Allied section 8 orders limited the mother’s ability to exercise parental responsibility in day-to-day matters.
5. The court considered that the orders were capable of recognition and enforcement in Portugal. It accepted that Portuguese social services were likely to monitor and support the placement for at least two months, while expressly declining to undertake a detailed analysis of the transferability of local-authority obligations between member states.

The proposed orders were made and the plan for the children’s transition to Portugal was approved.

Not stated in the judgment.