Re C & Ors (Care Proceedings: Adequacy of Reasons)
[2023] EWCA Civ 334
ADA (Children: Care and Placement Orders)
29 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 743
Court of Appeal
Three kids were taken into care. The court decided the older two should stay in care because their mom wasn't safe, but the youngest child's case needed a second look because the judge didn't properly consider whether the child's aunt and uncle were a good alternative. So, that part of the case will be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •Care orders were made for B (14), C (10), and D (2), and a placement order for D.
- •The mother appealed the orders for B, C, and D; B appealed her own order; D's father appealed D's orders.
- •The mother had a history of assault and violence; the father also had a history of assault.
- •Initial care plan was special guardianship with the aunt and uncle for all three older children but this was later withdrawn due to concerns about safeguarding.
- •A final hearing took place in February 2023, considering various placement options including returning B and C to their mother and placing D with the aunt and uncle or adopting D.
- •The judge made care orders for all four children and a placement order for D, with a s.26 Adoption and Children Act 2002 order for contact between the older children and D.
Legal Principles
In care proceedings, the paramount consideration is the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, s.1(1)
Adoption can only be approved where it is in the child's lifelong best interests and where the severe interference with the right to respect for family life is necessary and proportionate.
Re D (A Child: Placement Order) [2022] EWCA Civ 896
A rigorous evaluation and comparison of all realistic possibilities for a child's future must be undertaken before an adoption order is made.
Re H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 17
Judges decide cases, not experts.
Re MW (Care Proceedings)
When assessing risk of future harm, the court should consider the type of harm, likelihood, consequences, and mitigating steps.
Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761
Outcomes
Appeals regarding B and C dismissed.
The judge was entitled to prefer the social worker's assessment over the expert's, given the longer involvement and concerns about the expert's approach. The mother's partial acceptance of the findings and the ongoing risk of harm were relevant factors.
Appeals regarding D allowed; care and placement orders set aside; interim care order substituted; case remitted for rehearing.
The judge did not adequately address the risk assessment for D's placement with the aunt and uncle, and failed to sufficiently demonstrate how she resolved the critical evaluations and comparisons of placement options. The late change in the plan and lack of a specific professional assessment also contributed to this.