Key Facts
- •C is an 11-year-old girl of mixed [Country A] and British heritage living in foster care.
- •C's parents struggled with drug and alcohol addiction.
- •C lived with her maternal aunt and uncle (SG1 and SG2) under a special guardianship order since 2019.
- •C's mother died in 2019.
- •C's father (F) lives in [Country A] and is in recovery from addiction.
- •C's paternal aunt (PA1) in the USA wishes for C to be placed with the paternal family.
- •Disputes center around C's trips to the USA in 2020 and 2021, with allegations of abduction and misleading of authorities.
- •In 2019, a hairpin was found in C's vagina, leading to concerns of sexual abuse.
- •The local authority initially supported assessing PA1 but later ruled out the paternal family as a placement option.
Legal Principles
Care or Supervision Orders can only be made if a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm attributable to care given.
Section 31, Children Act 1989
The burden of proof for threshold findings is on the local authority, with the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
The court must consider the welfare checklist factors in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, with the child's welfare as the paramount consideration.
Section 1(1) and 1(3), Children Act 1989
The court must adopt a holistic approach, balancing all realistic options and ensuring proportionality of any intervention.
Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; Re B [2013] UKSC 33
The court cannot dictate the local authority's care plan but expects respect for its risk and welfare assessments.
Re T (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2018] EWCA Civ 650
Outcomes
Care order made for C to remain in long-term foster care.
The judge found significant risks in returning C to SG1 and SG2 due to their past actions, poor decision-making, and inability to manage C's relationship with her paternal family. Foster care provides stability and allows for assessment of the paternal family.
Special guardianship orders to remain in place.
The judge acknowledged the importance of C's relationship with SG1 and SG2, and that discharging the orders would cause emotional harm. The care order does not automatically extinguish parental responsibility.
Local authority to reconsider its care plan to include a home study assessment of the paternal family in the USA.
The judge found the local authority's decision to rule out the paternal family unfair, citing positive assessments and the need to explore all realistic options for C's long-term welfare. The judge highlighted the importance of exploring adoption with the paternal family in the US.
Contact arrangements reviewed.
Contact with SG1 and SG2 to be regular but reduced to six times a year initially, with the possibility of overnight stays later. Regular contact with the paternal family to be maintained, including virtual contact and visits, with a review of C's relationship with her father and potential for increased contact.