The Local Authority v F & Anor
[2023] EWFC 142
A-G (Care Orders)
26 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 40 (B)
Family Court
Seven kids were taken from their parents because of drug use, violence, and neglect at home. The court decided it was best for the kids to live in foster care, even though one parent wanted them back. The judge thought it was safer for the kids, despite a parent's efforts to participate. The court decided the children's safety and well-being are most important.
Key Facts
- •Seven children (A-G) were subject to care proceedings due to significant harm caused by parental drug misuse, domestic abuse, neglect, and poor living conditions.
- •The mother did not oppose Care Orders but opposed the contact plan.
- •The father of the middle four children ('FT') opposed the Care Orders and sought an adjournment, failing to attend the hearing.
- •The father of the youngest child ('FF') was incarcerated and supported the Local Authority's plan for his child.
- •The eldest child, 'A', provided a detailed handwritten account of the family's experiences.
- •Expert evidence from a psychologist supported the Local Authority's assessment of the risks.
Legal Principles
Paramount consideration of the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, s.1
Threshold criteria for Care Orders: significant harm attributable to parenting.
Children Act 1989, s.31(2)
Definition of 'harm' encompassing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, or behavioural development.
Children Act 1989, s.31(9) and 105
Definition of domestic abuse, including impact on children.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and Family Procedure Rules 2010, Practice Direction 12J
Proportionality in making care orders, balancing risks and benefits.
Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761
Article 8 ECHR: right to respect for private and family life, subject to necessary and proportionate interference.
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8
Least interventionist principle in care proceedings.
Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2006] EWCC 2 (Fam) and Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33
Outcomes
Care Orders were made for all seven children.
The threshold criteria were met, and the care plans were deemed in the children's best interests, balancing their welfare needs with the risks and wishes of the parents.
FT's application to adjourn was dismissed.
FT's lack of engagement and prioritization of the proceedings, coupled with the children's needs for stability and the 26-week time limit, led to the dismissal.
Local Authority's care plans for placement and contact were endorsed.
The plans were deemed to prioritize the children's welfare, considering their individual needs, wishes, and the risks involved.