G (A Child: Care Order) (Complex Developmental Needs) (No 1), Re
[2023] EWFC 168 (B)
G (A Child: Care Order) (Complex Developmental Needs) (No 2), Re
29 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 218 (B)
Family Court
An 11-year-old boy, G, needs a lot of care. His parents love him but don't fully understand his needs, and the court worries they might hurt him. A judge decided it's safer for G to live in a special home, even though it's sad for the family. The judge said the risks of G being with his parents are too high, and a further assessment wouldn't help.
Key Facts
- •G, an 11-year-old child, is the subject of care order proceedings.
- •Nottinghamshire County Council applies for a care order, seeking placement in Spring Home residential home.
- •The parents seek further assessment with G placed in their care, with the father as primary caregiver.
- •A previous hearing resulted in findings of deficits in the parents' understanding of G's needs.
- •A jointly instructed independent social worker, Dr Farooqi, provided a report and gave evidence, which was heavily criticised by the local authority and children's guardian.
- •The main issues were whether an adjournment was needed, whether assessment in the parents' care was necessary, and what the realistic welfare options were.
Legal Principles
The paramount consideration is the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3)
Proper evidence from the local authority and guardian must address all realistically possible options, analyzing arguments for and against each.
Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 at [34]
Only realistic options need full consideration; those demonstrably unrealistic can be discarded.
Re R (A child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 at [59]
The court must consider the impact of any assessment on the child's welfare.
Family Procedure Rules 2010
Expert witnesses have a duty to help the court on matters within their expertise.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 25.3(1)
Outcomes
Care order granted with placement in Spring Home.
The parents' fundamental deficits in parenting capacity, despite some progress, outweigh the harm of separation. An assessment in the parents' home would likely cause significant harm to G and is not necessary for a just resolution. The risks to G's welfare are too great if he were placed with his parents.
Application for adjournment refused.
Further assessment is not necessary to achieve a just resolution. The court has sufficient evidence to determine G's best interests.
Application for section 38(6) placement refused.
The risk of significant harm to G in the parents' care outweighs the potential benefits of an assessment. The parents' fundamental beliefs and attitudes about parenting are not environment-specific.