The Local Authority v M & Ors
[2024] EWFC 70 (B)
A, B, C and D (Delay: Assessment of Harm), Re
8 August 2024
[2024] EWFC 253 (B)
Family Court
Four siblings suffered harm and the court had to decide where they should live. Two siblings wanted to live together, but experts were worried about the risk of more harm. The judge decided it wasn't safe for them to live together yet, so they will live separately for now while getting help. The court said the local authority will keep overseeing things to see if they can all live together later.
Key Facts
- •Local Authority applied for public law orders (53 weeks into proceedings, exceeding statutory time limit).
- •Complex issues involved: particular harm between elder children, risk assessment, parental risk, father's criminal proceedings.
- •Mother accepted threshold; Father disputed two elements.
- •Children A, C, and D's placements were agreed upon.
- •Disputed issue: whether child B should join child A with extended family (G and H) or remain under a care order.
- •Expert reports from a Specialist Unit and Psychologist were considered.
- •Significant delays due to complex investigations and the need for comprehensive risk assessments.
- •Concerns regarding the risk of 'particular harm' between the children, particularly A and B.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof in family court proceedings: the party seeking a finding must prove it on the balance of probabilities.
Family Court
Public law orders require 'threshold' to be met under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, but the court is not obligated to make orders even if threshold is met.
Children Act 1989, section 31
Court decisions must prioritize children's welfare and be necessary and proportionate, minimizing interference with Article 8 rights.
Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights
In assessing welfare, the court considers the welfare checklist and must consider the wishes and feelings of the children (where appropriate).
Children Act 1989
Re F & G (Discharge of Special Guardianship Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 622 considered in determining appropriate orders.
Re F & G (Discharge of Special Guardianship Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 622
Outcomes
Final care orders made for children A, B, and C; supervision order for child D.
Threshold was met; care orders were the least intrusive option to ensure the children's safety and welfare, given the significant risks and the need for ongoing therapy and assessment.
Child B will not immediately join child A with G and H.
Unquantifiable risk of 'particular harm' between A and B; need for further assessment and therapy before determining a suitable living arrangement. Despite potential benefits of siblings living together, the risks were deemed too great at this stage.
Care orders deemed appropriate over Special Guardianship Orders for A and B.
Ongoing support and parental responsibility needed by Local Authority to manage complex needs and potential future risks; consistency in orders for A and B despite different placements; considering Re F & G (Discharge of Special Guardianship Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 622.
Findings of fact made regarding disputed elements of threshold.
Evidence from J (Parenting Assessor) preferred over Father's denial; evidence from Psychologist regarding A's statements found credible.