Lancashire County Council v M & Ors

Permission is required before care proceedings may be withdrawn. Where the local authority accepts that it cannot satisfy the threshold criteria under the Children Act 1989, withdrawal should follow where that inability is obvious. The court must examine the evidence rather than merely accept the authority’s decision.

Where the threshold is met, the court must also consider the child’s welfare and whether no order would be better. The welfare checklist provides a useful, and in practice always relevant, analytical framework when deciding whether to permit withdrawal, particularly where an interim care order will be discharged. Public-law intervention must remain justified by evidence and proportionate to the child’s and parents’ rights.

The local authority sought permission to withdraw care proceedings concerning a 13-year-old child with complex medical needs who required continuous care. The parents opposed withdrawal, contending that the proposed care arrangements placed an unreasonable burden upon them and compromised the child’s safety. They also relied on a claim under section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The evidence showed that earlier conflict between the parents and professionals had been substantially influenced by the stressful and highly pressured care environment. A systemic intervention had improved relationships, and the court considered whether the threshold criteria were met and whether withdrawal was compatible with the child’s welfare.

1. Permission and applicable framework. Under rule 29.4(2) of the Family Procedure Rules, a local authority may withdraw care proceedings only with the court’s permission. The decision is for the court, which must analyse the evidential basis of the application.
2. Threshold criteria. One category arises where the local authority accepts that it cannot satisfy section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. Following the approach in J, A, M and X (children) [2013] EWHC 4648 (Fam), the inability to establish the threshold must be obvious. The State cannot justify intervention in family life unless the statutory jurisdictional criteria are met.
3. Welfare considerations. If the threshold is met, the court may nevertheless consider whether withdrawal is in the child’s best interests. The no-order principle in section 1(5) requires consideration of whether no order would be better for the child. Where an interim care order will be discharged, section 1(3) and the welfare checklist are engaged, or at least provide an analytical framework which will always assist the court. The welfare of the child is paramount when determining a question concerning upbringing, consistently with London Borough of Southwark v B [1993] 2 LFR 559.
4. Application to the evidence. The threshold question had to be assessed against the whole evidential canvas, including the evidence of the parents and social worker, rather than solely the expert evidence. The earlier difficulties were attributable to a highly pressured and sensitised system rather than parental conduct establishing statutory harm or likely harm. It was therefore obvious that the threshold criteria were not met.
5. Disposition. The application for permission to withdraw was granted. The care proceedings and the parents’ human-rights claim consequently fell away. The child did not require continuing public-law intervention.