A girl's parents and the local council agreed she needed help, but disagreed about the best way to do it. The council wanted a court order giving them full control, but the judge decided that a less forceful agreement was better for her, allowing her parents to stay involved.
Key Facts
- •Care order application for 13-year-old R by Lincoln County Council.
- •Parents accept threshold criteria (child beyond parental control) but oppose care order.
- •R has a history of challenging behaviour, self-harm, and violence.
- •R is currently in a foster placement, and the long-term plan is for her to remain there.
- •Parents and local authority largely agree on the care plan, the dispute centers on the need for a care order.
Legal Principles
Section 20 accommodation vs. care order.
Re S (A Child) and Re W (A Child) (s 20 Accommodation) [2023] EWCA Civ 1
Paramountcy principle and welfare checklist (Children Act 1989, s.1(3)).
Children Act 1989
Proportionality of care orders.
In the matter of H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 1451
Article 6 and Article 8 rights (European Convention on Human Rights).
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Care order application dismissed.
The court found that a care order was disproportionate and not necessary to meet R's needs. The current Section 20 arrangement, with its inherent flexibility and collaborative approach, was deemed sufficient. The potential for future conflict was considered greater under a care order than under the existing arrangement.