A Local Authority v The Mother (AZ) & Ors

In care proceedings, serious findings of sexual, physical and coercive abuse may justify excluding a parent from the family home where the resulting risk to a child cannot be safely managed. The risk need not be capable of precise quantification. The court may draw a risk inference from the established findings, the parent’s continuing denial, the inability to assess or manage the risk, and the family’s vulnerability to pressure or control.

Interference with family life must receive substantial weight, but the child’s safety remains determinative. Supervised contact may be required where there remains a risk of physical or sexual harm or of manipulation, even though the risk associated with community contact is lower than the risk of living together.

This was the final hearing in care proceedings concerning RV, aged three, following a fact-finding judgment dated 14 August 2023. The court had found that the Father had sexually and physically abused his older daughter, DZ, had exercised coercive control over the family, and had repeatedly lied.

The issue was whether the Father could return to the family home and have unrestricted contact with RV. The Local Authority and Children’s Guardian contended that the risks were serious and unmanageable. The parents sought the Father’s return home without restrictions. The court also considered whether contact in the community should remain supervised.

1. Orders concerning the family home. The court applied the welfare checklist under Children Act 1989, s 1. Excluding the Father from the family home was a significant interference with family life under article 8, requiring weighty justification. That interference was justified because the risk of harm to RV was unmanageable.
2. The Father’s denial of the findings made it impossible to assess the precise nature and level of his sexual risk. That difficulty did not mean that the Local Authority lacked evidence of a risk to RV, although the evidence concerning risk to a younger boy was of questionable weight. The court could nevertheless conclude that some risk of sexual abuse existed.
3. The court placed particular weight on the continuing risks arising from the findings of coercive control, manipulation and physical abuse. If the Father returned home, the Mother and children were unlikely to report further concerns because of fear that RV might be removed. There were no realistic third parties capable of providing effective oversight, and the Mother’s insight into the controlling behaviour was inadequate.
4. The combined risks of sexual, physical and emotional harm, together with the absence of effective safeguards, meant that RV could only be kept safe if the Father did not return to the family home. The court accepted that separation from the Father would itself harm RV, but that consideration did not outweigh the safety risks.
5. Contact. Unsupervised community contact was refused. The risk of sexual harm in that setting was considered relatively small, but the risks of physical abuse and manipulation remained material. Contact was therefore to remain supervised for at least the next year, subject to possible change as the family circumstances developed. It was reasonable for the Local Authority to require the family to propose suitable supervisors.

This was a first-instance final hearing. It followed the fact-finding judgment delivered on 14 August 2023; the Father had been refused permission to appeal from that judgment.