Key Facts
- •A toddler (E) was subject to an Interim Care Order and in foster care.
- •E suffered a fractured elbow, allegedly caused by excessive force; the perpetrators remain unknown.
- •Parents have a history of drug use and domestic violence.
- •Paternal grandmother sought to care for E; parents supported this, but the Local Authority and Guardian advocated for adoption.
- •A fact-finding hearing established significant harm and risk of future harm to E.
Legal Principles
Threshold test for care and supervision orders (significant harm attributable to parental care)
Children Act 1989, section 31(2)
Paramountcy of child's welfare; welfare checklist (Children Act 1989, section 1(3); Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1(4))
Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002
Least interventionist approach preferred; order must be better for the child than no order
Children Act 1989, section 1(5); Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1(6)
Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights (right to a fair trial and respect for private and family life)
ECHR
Placement order: parental consent required or dispensed with if child's welfare necessitates it; 'nothing else will do' test
Adoption and Children Act 2002, sections 21(3), 52
Outcomes
Care Order and Placement Order made.
Adoption deemed best for E's welfare due to risks associated with placement with paternal grandmother (physical limitations, unresolved past trauma, lack of insight into parental risks). Long-term foster care considered too risky due to potential for multiple placement changes.
Parental consent to adoption dispensed with.
Child's welfare requires it; other options deemed insufficiently safe or stable.