Liverpool City Council v A & Ors

Once the threshold for state intervention is crossed, welfare decision-making requires a pure assessment of the child’s welfare. There is no presumption or starting point that a child should be raised by a parent. The court must consider all realistically possible options through a global, holistic and multifaceted analysis, weighing their advantages, disadvantages, risks and protective factors in the child’s individual circumstances.

For a young child, security, stability, permanency, belonging, cultural and linguistic identity, and important family relationships must all be evaluated. A significant sibling relationship is important but cannot automatically determine the outcome. Any interference with Article 8 rights must be necessary and proportionate, although the child’s best interests remain paramount.

Liverpool City Council sought a final care order and approval of a plan for N, aged seven, to remain in long-term foster care. N’s father opposed the application and sought rehabilitation of N to his care in Italy, supported by Italian child-protection services. N’s mother and guardian supported the local authority’s plan.

A previous order that N should live with his father in Italy had been successfully appealed in Re N (A Child) (Care Order: Welfare Evaluation) [2024] EWCA Civ 938. The present hearing was the rehearing of welfare decision-making. The central issue was whether N’s welfare was best served by remaining in long-term foster care with his sibling or by moving to Italy to live with his father.

1. Welfare framework. The court applied section 1 of the Children Act 1989, under which N’s welfare was paramount, with particular regard to the welfare checklist in section 1(3). Following Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and Re G (A Child) (Care Proceedings; Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, the court considered the two realistic options globally and holistically, balancing their respective advantages, disadvantages, risks and protective factors.
2. There was no parental presumption or starting point once threshold had been crossed. The advantages of parental care and foster care had to be assessed in the individual circumstances. N’s wishes and feelings were relevant under section 1(3)(a), but were not determinative given his age and limited understanding.
3. The court considered N’s need for safety, consistently adequate care, permanency, belonging, cultural and linguistic identity, and maintenance of his relationships with both parents and siblings. Continued placement with his sibling was important but could not be determinative of N’s individual welfare, particularly given the risks to placement stability and the complexity of the sibling relationship.
4. The court found that the local authority’s and guardian’s analyses were materially unbalanced. They had overstated the benefits of foster care, insufficiently considered its risks, including loss of paternal and maternal relationships, cultural and linguistic erosion, and lack of true permanency, and had failed adequately to consider how the support available in Italy could mitigate risks.
5. The court accepted the cautious assessments that the father could meet N’s needs to a good enough standard. The residual risk of domestic abuse was minimal and could be safely managed through the extensive professional support in Italy. The father’s established attachment to N, commitment, willingness to engage with support, and capacity for child-focused parenting were significant protective factors.
6. Although the move to Italy would involve substantial change and likely challenges, the longer-term welfare evaluation favoured rehabilitation to the father. The court therefore invited the local authority to amend its care plan and file a transition and support plan for N to move into his father’s care over the summer vacation.

A final child arrangements order made in February 2024 providing for N to live with his father in Italy was successfully appealed in Re N (A Child) (Care Order: Welfare Evaluation) [2024] EWCA Civ 938. This judgment records the rehearing of welfare decision-making following that appeal.