The Mother & Anor v Shropshire Council & Anor

A child subject to a care order, including a care order at home, should be allowed ordinary childhood and family experiences unless doing so creates an unmanageable risk. Preventing foreign travel requires a properly identified and justified additional risk, assessed by reference to the actual proposed arrangements. General distrust, communication difficulties, or the greater theoretical ability to monitor a child in the United Kingdom will not suffice. The court must focus on the specific risks posed by the proposed holiday, including risks from identified individuals, third parties, or non-return. Any residual risk may be addressed by proportionate safeguards where appropriate.

The parents sought permission for their three-year-old daughter, H, who was living with them under a care order at home, to accompany them on a holiday to Spain. The local authority and the Children’s Guardian opposed the trip, relying on alleged dishonesty concerning the holiday and passport, the parents’ history of failing to protect older children from sexual risk, and the reduced ability to monitor H abroad.

The proceedings followed earlier care proceedings, including the setting aside of care and placement orders by the Court of Appeal and the subsequent making of a care order at home. The central issue was whether the proposed holiday created a material and unmanageable additional risk to H which justified interference with her family life.

1. The application was granted. The parents and H were permitted to travel to Spain for the holiday. The court found that the additional risk of H being in Spain with her parents, compared with remaining in the United Kingdom, did not justify preventing the trip.
2. The court applied a proportionality analysis. It was necessary to identify the precise risk against which the local authority sought to protect H. A child in care should live as normal a life as possible and enjoy ordinary childhood experiences unless the proposed activity creates an unmanageable risk. State interference requires proper justification.
3. The relevant risks were not sufficiently established. F was not going on the holiday and E was not said to be attending. The possible involvement of unknown third parties was remote, particularly given the Mother’s protectiveness and the limited nature of a hotel holiday. The risk of absconding or non-return was minimal because the parents’ connections were in the United Kingdom; the suggested risk of taking H to Pakistan was far-fetched.
4. The local authority’s distinction between holidays in Wales and Spain lacked analytical force. Although monitoring might theoretically be easier in the United Kingdom, there was no evidence that such monitoring had occurred in practice. A care order at home was not a form of imprisonment or constant surveillance. The parties had previously agreed that the exceptional circumstances for such an order were met under Re JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944, with full knowledge of the family’s risks.
5. The parents’ learning difficulties and the local authority’s admitted failure to progress the passport application contributed to misunderstandings. The court rejected the allegation that the Father had acted dishonestly by failing to disclose the care order on the passport form. Any residual concern could be mitigated by daily contact between the parents and the local authority or Family Support Worker.

The judgment describes earlier stages in the same care proceedings.

• High Court (Family Division): Care and placement orders were made by HHJ Lopez on 8 September 2022.
• Court of Appeal: The care and placement orders were set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing on 2 February 2023.
• High Court (Family Division): A care order at home was made by agreement on 24 July 2023. The present court permitted the proposed holiday to Spain.