G (A Child: Care Order) (Complex Developmental Needs) (No 2), Re
[2023] EWFC 218 (B)
G (A Child: Care Order) (Complex Developmental Needs) (No 1), Re
9 October 2023
[2023] EWFC 168 (B)
Family Court
A judge decided to delay a decision about whether a severely disabled child should stay in a residential home or go home with his parents. The judge said the local council hadn't done enough investigation to show if the parents could cope, even with extra help. So, they'll investigate more before making a final decision.
Key Facts
- •G, an 11-year-old boy with complex developmental needs (autism, learning disability, epilepsy), was the subject of a care order application by Nottinghamshire County Council.
- •G had been living in residential care (Spring Home) since July 2021.
- •The parents (mother and father) sought G's return home, but conceded a care order was a realistic possibility.
- •The court heard evidence from various professionals, including a community paediatrician, an independent social worker (ISW), the registered manager of Spring Home, and social workers from the local authority.
- •The core bundle was 929 pages long, but only a small fraction was directly relevant to the final decision.
- •The father admitted facts sufficient to meet the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.
- •The court considered the ascertainable wishes and feelings of G, his physical, emotional, and educational needs, and the capacity of each parent to meet those needs.
- •The local authority's care plan and assessment of the family's capacity were deemed unsatisfactory due to lack of detail regarding available support services and a failure to analyse the potential impact of various interventions.
- •The court considered the case of Re P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215 regarding adjournments.
Legal Principles
The overriding objective to deal fairly in the conduct of proceedings.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 1.3
Threshold criteria for care orders: significant harm attributable to inadequate parental care (section 31(2) Children Act 1989).
Children Act 1989, section 31(2)
Child's welfare paramount (section 1(1) Children Act 1989).
Children Act 1989, section 1(1)
Care orders are draconian and only justified when in the child's best interests.
Re L (Care: threshold criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050
Considerations for section 38(6) placement: necessity of assessment, impact on child's welfare, available evidence, and procedural fairness.
Children Act 1989, section 38(6), (7A), (7B)
Fairness is the touchstone for case management decisions, including adjournments (Re P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215).
Re P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215
Outcomes
Refusal to admit a document into evidence during the father's cross-examination.
The document was not necessary to prove a fact in issue and admitting it would have been unfair and disproportionate given the circumstances.
Adjournment of the final hearing.
The local authority had not adequately assessed the family's capacity to care for G in light of all available support services, preventing the court from making a just decision on the care order application.
Refusal to place G with parents under section 38(6).
The court was not satisfied the parents could meet G's needs without further intervention and that an immediate placement presented a significant risk of harm.