Darlington Borough Council v M & Ors
[2024] EWFC 193 (B)
A Father v Middlesbrough Council & Ors
2 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 15
Family Court
A little girl needed a safe home. Her grandparents tried their best, but couldn't give her the care she needed. The judge decided it was best for the girl to go to a special foster family who can help her with her health and behavior issues. It was a hard decision, but the judge had to choose what was best for the girl.
Key Facts
- •V, a five-year-old girl, has been the subject of three sets of public law proceedings.
- •V has lived with her paternal grandparents (X and Y) for about two and a half years.
- •The Local Authority seeks to place V in long-term foster care due to concerns about her care.
- •Negative assessments were made of the paternal grandparents and V's paternal aunt (Z) as potential carers.
- •V is obese, has continence issues, and has exhibited challenging behavior at school.
- •The father supports the Local Authority's plan; the mother and paternal grandparents oppose it.
- •The Children's Guardian supports the Local Authority's plan.
Legal Principles
An order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents (or family carers) can only be made if 'justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests'. The test is one of necessity.
Re B [2013] UKSC 33, Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Re DE (A child) [2014] EWFC 6
The paramount consideration is the child's best interests. The court must only make an order if it is better than not making an order.
Children Act 1989, s1(3) and s1(5)
Society must be willing to tolerate diverse standards of parenting, and the state cannot spare children all consequences of defective parenting.
Re L (care: threshold criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050
Outcomes
V will be placed in long-term foster care.
The court found that the paternal grandparents are unable to meet V's complex needs, despite attempts to support them. Placement with Z was deemed unstable due to family dynamics. Long-term foster care was considered the only option to ensure V's safety and well-being.
Specific contact arrangements were ordered.
The court balanced V's need for contact with family members against the need to support the foster placement. Supervised contact was initially ordered to mitigate the risk of family members undermining the foster care.