Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning two siblings, James and Alison.
- •Concerns of neglectful parenting, including poor hygiene, school attendance, and general parenting.
- •Emerging concerns about Alison's risk of child sexual exploitation and poor social behaviour.
- •Broad consensus on James remaining at home with his mother under a supervision order.
- •Dispute regarding Alison's placement: remaining at home or being placed in foster care under a care order.
- •Alison's strong wish to remain at home.
- •Several incidents involving Alison (witnessing a sexual assault, leaving home at 5 am, involvement in an incident at a Tesco store, and online threats) escalated concerns.
- •Conflicting expert opinions on Alison's placement; psychologist supporting her remaining at home, while social workers and the children's guardian initially favouring a care order.
- •Mother's parenting style described as permissive and avoidant.
- •Evidence suggests improvements in home conditions, but ongoing issues with school attendance and Alison's behaviour.
Legal Principles
Child's welfare is paramount.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3)
Legal threshold for public law order: significant harm suffered or likely to be suffered due to inadequate care (Children Act 1989, section 31).
Children Act 1989, section 31
Proportionality of the order in relation to Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life).
Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Supervision order for Alison for 12 months.
Judge found the case finely balanced but ultimately favoured keeping Alison at home due to concerns about the negative impact of removal on her emotional well-being and engagement with therapy. The judge also considered that the mother had good prospects of making necessary changes with appropriate support.
Supervision order for James for 12 months.
Agreed outcome.