Newcastle City Council v JK (Mother) & Ors

In care proceedings, the court must assess each realistic placement option against the welfare of each child, considering the evidence as a whole and giving proper weight to safety, developmental needs, relationships, wishes and feelings, and the risk of further harm.

Children’s wishes to return to a parent do not determine the outcome where the evidence shows that the parent cannot provide safe, stable and adequately supervised care. The court may reject an international family placement as unrealistic where it lacks a sufficient evidential foundation and would cause delay. In family proceedings, oral evidence from abroad may generally be received by video link where there is no specific reason for doubt about the foreign state’s objection, particularly where requiring attendance in England would cause disproportionate delay.

Newcastle City Council applied for final care orders in respect of four children who had been removed from their mother’s care after repeated concerns about neglect, inadequate supervision, unsafe adults, domestic conflict and physical and emotional harm. The children had previously been removed from their parents’ care in Austria, where the mother later abducted them and brought them to England.

The mother sought the return of all or some of the children. The father proposed alternative placements with paternal uncles in Austria. The local authority sought long-term foster care, separately for each child, and withdrew its application for a placement order concerning the youngest child.

The court determined the children’s welfare, the realistic placement options, the proposed Austrian placements, the withdrawal of the placement application, and whether evidence from Austria could properly be taken by video link.

1. Care orders and placement options. The threshold for care orders was conceded and established for each child. The court considered the realistic options side by side, applying the welfare principle under the Children Act 1989. The children’s wishes to return to their mother were important but could not outweigh the risks demonstrated by the evidence.
2. The mother had caused or contributed to serious harm through abduction, neglect, inadequate supervision, concealment, failure to engage with professional support, inability to impose boundaries, and failure to support the children’s relationship with their father. The court had no confidence that she could keep the children safe, engage with professionals, or prevent further flight. The unknown and concerning role of her current partner was an additional high-risk factor.
3. Long-term foster care was the only realistic option capable of providing safety, stability, therapeutic assistance and appropriate parenting. Separate placements were justified by the children’s violent and dysfunctional relationships, although sibling contact and future placement reviews were required. The proposed placements with the paternal uncles in Austria were unrealistic and assessment would cause unwarranted delay.
4. The application for a placement order concerning the youngest child was withdrawn. Foster care would preserve opportunities for sibling, maternal and paternal contact and cultural and religious connections, while providing the stability he required.
5. Evidence from abroad. The broad guidance in Agbabiaka was not binding on the Family Court and different considerations applied in family proceedings, including paramount welfare, avoidance of delay and the statutory 26-week timetable. Taking evidence by video link from abroad was not unlawful and did not itself make proceedings a nullity. In the absence of a specific diplomatic concern, and where attendance in England would be disproportionate or cause delay, the court could proceed. The court also concluded that the Austro-British Convention permitted the judge to take the evidence as a suitable person appointed for that purpose.
6. Final care orders were made for all four children. The care plans were approved, providing supervised monthly maternal contact, monthly sibling contact, cultural and religious support, life-story work, steps to rebuild the relationship with the father, and reviews of placements.