Bedford Borough Council v CD & Ors (Rev 1)

Children’s expressed wishes and feelings must be assessed in the context of all the evidence. They should not be treated as determinative where the evidence shows that the child’s views may have been influenced, manipulated or conflicted by the environment in which the child lives. The court must consider the reliability and authenticity of the expressed wishes, including the child’s ability to explain them, the conduct and attitudes of carers, and the objective evidence about the child’s relationships and welfare. Where a placement has undermined the child’s relationship with a parent and cannot support safe and meaningful contact, the child’s welfare may require removal from that placement, even where the child has recently expressed a wish to remain there.

The proceedings concerned the welfare of J, a teenager who had lived for about two years with close family friends, Mr and Mrs X, following the death of his infant half-sister and the criminal proceedings involving his parents. J had initially expressed a wish to return to his mother, with gradual increases in contact, but later expressed strong opposition to unsupervised contact and to living with his mother.

The court conducted an urgent remote hearing to investigate the sudden change in J’s wishes and feelings and the circumstances in which those views had developed. The central issues were whether J’s recent wishes were reliable and authentic, whether the placement was promoting his welfare and relationships, and whether he should remain living with Mr and Mrs X.

1. The current placement could not continue. The evidence showed that Mr and Mrs X held deeply negative views about J’s mother and had opposed unsupervised contact. Their conduct had become obstructive and had undermined J’s relationship with his mother.
2. J’s recent wishes and feelings were not reliable expressions of his true views. J had previously wished to live with his mother and had proposed a natural progression from supervised to unsupervised contact. His later change of position was accompanied by an inability to explain his objections, a presentation inconsistent with his stated views, and evidence that he was conflicted between his main carer and his mother.
3. The court concluded that J’s views had been affected and subverted by the environment in which he had lived. His expressed wishes therefore had to be assessed alongside the objective evidence and the conduct of those caring for him. The case demonstrated the danger of treating a young person’s expressed wishes and feelings as decisive where the wider evidence points to influence or manipulation.
4. J was required to leave the home of Mr and Mrs X and live elsewhere pending further determination. The court noted that possible arrangements involving the maternal grandmother and accommodation secured by the mother appeared constructive, but the details required further consideration at a later hearing.

Not an appeal. The judgment was an interim welfare determination within ongoing care proceedings.