London Borough of Barnet v FW & Ors

In determining whether to make a care order, the court must assess the child’s welfare by applying the statutory checklist and considering the realistic alternatives available at the date of decision. The child’s wishes, family relationships, cultural background and the benefits of remaining within the family are important, but must be balanced against safeguarding risks and the ability of proposed carers to meet the child’s particular needs. A care order may be made where family care cannot presently provide sufficient safety, stability, supervision or developmental support, even where the child has a strong and valuable relationship with a relative. That relationship may instead be preserved through carefully supported contact.

The London Borough of Barnet applied for a final care order concerning HW, aged 15, who had significant developmental and behavioural difficulties. His mother accepted that she could not meet his needs. His grandmother opposed a care order and proposed that HW live with her, relying on their close emotional relationship, family experience and shared travelling-community background.

The parties invited the court to decide the application on submissions. The central issues were whether the statutory threshold was met, whether HW’s grandmother could safely meet his needs, whether the proposed alternatives were realistic, and whether a final care order was necessary having regard to the statutory welfare checklist.

1. Threshold. The relevant date was 27 October 2022. The parties accepted that HW was suffering, or was likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to his being beyond parental control. His mother’s volatile lifestyle meant that his needs were not met, and his circumstances with his grandmother involved neglect, inadequate supervision and risks to his welfare.
2. Disposal. The court considered the grandmother’s objections, including cultural background, her experience of caring for children, the quality of food and accommodation, HW’s deterioration in local-authority care, and the importance of their relationship. Those matters did not outweigh the evidence that she could not meet HW’s particular needs or ensure his safety. His current placement provided better physical and educational care, closer supervision and greater stability. The realistic choice was therefore between the current local-authority placement and care by the grandmother if the bail conditions changed. A supervision order would not provide a realistic alternative because the grandmother had already received extensive assistance.
3. Welfare assessment. Applying the checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the court gave weight to HW’s wishes but reduced weight because of his developmental age and understanding. It recognised that his grandmother was central to his emotional welfare and cultural identity, but concluded that those benefits were best preserved through contact rather than residence.
4. Order and contact. A final care order was made in favour of the local authority, with HW remaining in his current placement. Unlimited telephone contact was approved. Monthly direct contact was directed for his mother and twice-monthly direct contact for his grandmother, subject to review, with flexibility and practical assistance encouraged to preserve the relationships.

not stated in the judgment.