Coventry City Council v The Mother (BB) & Ors.

In care proceedings, the court must evaluate each realistic placement option globally and holistically. It must give proper weight to the benefits of family placement, while assessing the evidence of harm and the practical ability of each proposed carer to protect and promote the child’s relationships.

Parental anger, mental illness, poor behaviour or anti-social traits do not, without more, justify removing a child from a parent. However, conduct involving psychological abuse, coercive control, manipulation, intimidation of professionals and an inability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent may create a sufficiently serious welfare risk. Fact-finding must remain proportionate and focused on matters necessary to determine the orders required.

The local authority sought final care arrangements for a three-and-a-half-year-old child whose parents were United States citizens. The child had been in foster care under an interim care order since August 2021 following concerns about the mother’s neglect and mental illness, and about the highly conflicted and abusive parental relationship.

The local authority and Children’s Guardian supported placement with the maternal aunt and uncle in Florida under a special guardianship order. The father sought placement in California. The mother, who had repeatedly lacked capacity to conduct litigation and was incarcerated in the United States during the final hearing, was represented by the Official Solicitor. The central issues were whether threshold was crossed, whether either parent could safely care for the child, and which placement best served the child’s welfare.

1. Threshold and fact-finding. Threshold was crossed in relation to both parents. The court applied the balance of probabilities, placed the burden on the local authority, based findings on evidence rather than speculation, and considered the evidence on the wide canvas. The fact-finding exercise had to remain proportionate and directed to the orders required.
2. Mother. The mother’s mental illness, periods of detention, erratic behaviour and attempt to abduct the child from supervised contact demonstrated a continuing significant risk if the child were placed in her care. There was no reliable timescale for recovery compatible with the child’s need for permanence.
3. Father. The father had significant strengths, including good contact and commitment to the child. Nevertheless, the court found that he had sent the disputed abusive messages, had lied about them, had psychologically abused and manipulated the mother, and had used abusive and intimidating communications towards professionals and courts. This conduct created a severe risk that the child would be exposed to psychological abuse and would be prevented from maintaining a relationship with the mother and maternal family.
4. Welfare evaluation. The court followed the global, holistic approach required in competing placement cases. It weighed the benefits of parental care against the risks in each placement rather than rejecting options sequentially. The maternal aunt and uncle had been thoroughly assessed, were committed to the child’s long-term welfare, and were considered capable of protecting him from both parents while supporting safe supervised contact.
5. Orders. A special guardianship order was made in favour of the maternal aunt and uncle, with contact orders and a request for registration in Florida. A transition plan provided for the aunt and uncle to remain in the United Kingdom for approximately 14 days. The intention was that the aunt would consent to accommodation by the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

The judgment records that an earlier application for summary return under the Hague Convention was refused in AA v BB & Ors, and that permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal. The present decision was a first-instance determination of the care and welfare issues.