Key Facts
- •Four children (V, W, X, Y) were subject to care proceedings due to concerns of neglect and potential abuse.
- •The mother (M) and father (F) were the respondents. F was remanded in custody.
- •Multiple instances of unexplained injuries on the children were reported by school and nursery.
- •Child Protection Medicals revealed numerous injuries on the children, some attributed to the parents' recklessness or lack of supervision.
- •Expert reports provided conflicting opinions on the severity and cause of injuries.
- •The local authority (LA) sought care orders for all children and placement orders for X and Y (adoption).
- •The mother disputed drug and alcohol misuse allegations; evidence included Lextox reports.
- •The father initially did not oppose the LA's plans but later sought to have the children returned to his care.
- •The guardian supported the LA's plans but advocated for sibling contact orders.
Legal Principles
Threshold Criteria for Care Orders
Children Act 1989, s31(2)
Burden and Standard of Proof in Care Proceedings
Re L and M (children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Paramountcy of Child Welfare
Children Act 1989, s1(1); Adoption and Children Act 2002, s1(2)
Welfare Checklist
Children Act 1989, s1(3); Adoption and Children Act 2002, s1(4)
Least Interventionist Principle
Children Act 1989, s1(5); Adoption and Children Act 2002, s1(6)
Placement Orders and Dispensation of Consent
Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 13; Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; ACA 2002 s52
Sibling Contact Orders Post-Adoption
Adoption and Children Act 2002, s26(4); Re P [2008] EWCA Civ 535
Outcomes
Care orders made for all four children.
Threshold criteria met; lack of realistic alternatives; ongoing risk of harm to children in parental care.
Placement orders made for X and Y (adoption); parental consent dispensed with.
Adoption deemed to best serve the children's long-term welfare; lack of realistic parental care; benefits of permanence outweigh maintaining birth family connections.
Order for sibling contact made under s26(4) ACA 2002.
Strong sibling bond; court's responsibility to protect this relationship despite adoption; phased reduction in contact.