Stockton On Tees Borough Council v T & Ors
[2024] EWFC 248 (B)
B and G (Children), Re
30 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 225 (B)
Family Court
A mom's mental health problems meant her kids, G and B, were in care. The judge decided the younger brother, B, needed to stay in foster care due to his difficult behavior. However, the older sister, G, got to go back home to her mom because the mom had gotten better and it was deemed better for G than staying in foster care.
Key Facts
- •Two children, G (15) and B (13), are subject to interim care orders.
- •Both children were donor-conceived; the fathers are unknown.
- •The mother's poor mental health, including suicidal ideation, and its impact on the children are key concerns.
- •Previous proceedings resulted in a 12-month supervision order.
- •Current proceedings stem from concerns about the mother's inability to consistently meet the children's needs and continued suicidal ideation.
- •G's current friends and family foster placement is ending.
- •B is in local authority foster care and attends a specialist boarding school.
- •The local authority seeks care orders for both children, while the mother opposes a care order for G and seeks her immediate return.
Legal Principles
Local authorities must safeguard and promote children's welfare, prioritizing upbringing by families.
Children Act 1989
Care or supervision orders can only be made if threshold criteria (significant harm attributable to parenting) are met.
Children Act 1989, s.31(2)
A child's welfare is paramount when deciding on orders.
Children Act 1989, s.1
The court must consider the welfare checklist in s.1(3) Children Act 1989 and the no-order principle (s.1(5)).
Children Act 1989, s.1(3), s.1(5)
Care orders vest parental responsibility in the local authority; supervision orders do not.
Children Act 1989, s.31(1)(a), s.33(3)
A care order, rather than a supervision order, should only be made if necessary for the child's protection.
Re D, Re S, Re B (Care or Supervision Order)
In assessing risk, consider the type, likelihood, consequences, and mitigation steps; then compare welfare advantages and disadvantages of options, considering proportionality.
Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) applies; interference must be necessary and proportionate.
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8
Care orders with children remaining at home are permissible, but exceptional reasons may be needed; proportionality is key.
JW (child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944
Outcomes
Care order for B, with the local authority care plan endorsed (except for the driving restriction).
B's complex needs require the consistent care provided by his foster carers and residential school; mother supports this.
Supervision order for G, with immediate return to her mother's care.
While risks exist, the court finds a care order for G disproportionate. The mother's significant progress in mental health, G's strong preference to return home, and the potential harm of another foster placement outweigh the risks.