London Borough of Lambeth v M

A local authority’s duty to investigate extended-family placement options is welfare-based and holistic, but it is not absolute. Where the evidence shows that further enquiries would expose the child or parent to an unacceptable risk, would produce no realistic placement option, and would offer no corresponding welfare benefit, the court may declare that the authority is absolved from making those enquiries. The same approach may justify withholding notification to foreign authorities. The holistic evaluation required by Re B-S must be undertaken in the factual context of the case and not in a vacuum.

The local authority sought a declaration concerning a child under one year old whose mother was a Rwandan national. The child’s wider maternal family lived in Rwanda and had reacted to the pregnancy by pressuring the mother to return and terminate it. The authority sought to avoid further enquiries with that family and notification to the Rwandan authorities, on the basis that such steps would increase risks to the mother and child and could not identify a realistic placement option.

The mother supported the application. The court also considered whether the child should remain joined as a party and represented by a Children’s Guardian.

1. Declaration granted. The local authority was absolved from making further enquiries with the wider maternal family and from notifying the Rwandan authorities.
2. The authority remained under a duty to undertake a welfare-based investigation and to consider the welfare checklist in s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It also had to consider realistic extended-family placement options and conduct a holistic evaluation in accordance with Re B-S.
3. That holistic evaluation was not required to be conducted in a vacuum. The court could grant a declaration relieving the authority of further investigative obligations where the particular evidence established clear and cogent reasons for doing so.
4. Here, the evidence showed that contacting the maternal family or the Rwandan authorities would place the mother and child at an unacceptable level of risk. There was no realistic prospect that the wider family could provide a placement, and the enquiries would provide no corresponding welfare benefit while creating a likelihood of significant delay in securing a permanent placement.
5. The child need not remain joined as a party and no Children’s Guardian was required. The authority and the mother had taken sufficient steps to safeguard the child’s welfare and preserve appropriate information about the wider family. The wider maternal family had not established Article 8 family-life rights in relation to the child.