K (Child: Placement options: Concurrent planning), Re
[2024] EWFC 98 (B)
A (Care Planning), Re
23 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 155 (B)
Family Court
A baby's future is uncertain: adoption or living with her sisters' foster carers? The judge said the court must consider *all* options, and ordered a report to help decide. The foster carers' request to be involved was rejected as they should have raised the issue earlier.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings for A (1-year-old) have lasted 66 weeks.
- •A has two older half-sisters, B and C, in foster care due to allegations of sexual harm against their mother.
- •The local authority seeks care and placement orders for A with a plan of adoption.
- •The mother and father seek A's return or long-term foster care.
- •The guardian seeks for the local authority to reconsider placement with B and C's foster carers.
- •Foster carers intervened to challenge the adoption plan.
- •Significant legal arguments arose regarding the court's ability to explore placement with the half-sisters' foster carers.
Legal Principles
In care proceedings, the paramount consideration is the child's welfare throughout their life.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, s.1(4)
When considering a placement order, the court must conduct a thorough analysis of all realistic options.
Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146
The Family Court and local authority have distinct roles: the court evaluates risk and welfare, while the authority plans care. There must be interplay and cooperation between these roles.
Re T [2018] EWCA Civ 650, Re H [2018] EWFC 61
The court can probe a local authority's decision-making, but cannot force a change in their care plan.
Re H [2018] EWFC 61, Re T [2018] EWCA Civ 650
Permission for expert evidence is granted only if necessary to justly resolve proceedings. The test is imperative; what's required, not desirable. Factors in s.13(7) Children and Families Act 2014 must be considered.
Part 25 FPR 2010, s.13(7) Children and Families Act 2014
If an evidential gap exists impacting a child's future, an adjournment is very likely warranted, considering lifelong consequences of decisions.
Re E (cited in the judgment)
Outcomes
The court rejects the local authority's attempt to exclude placement with the half-sisters' foster carers from consideration.
The court must undertake a holistic Re B-S analysis of all realistic options for A's welfare, and excluding this option prematurely prevents a proper assessment.
The court orders an independent social worker (ISW) assessment of the foster carers' ability to care for A and an addendum assessment of the parents.
There's a gap in the evidence, necessitating further assessment to justly resolve the proceedings. The ISW's familiarity with the family reduces time and resources.
The court discharges the foster carers as intervenors.
Their joinder was not properly argued at an earlier hearing, and the guardian is adequately representing their interests.