London Borough of Waltham Forest v The Mother & Anor
[2023] EWFC 320 (B)
The London Borough of Ealing v The Mother & Ors
15 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 201 (B)
Family Court
A 13-year-old boy is staying with foster carers because his mum hasn't been able to care for him safely. The judge decided it's best for him to stay with his foster carers, even though his mum wants him back home, because it is a safe and stable environment for him. He can still see both his parents.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning a 13-year-old child.
- •Applicant (Ealing Borough Council), father, and guardian initially sought a child arrangements order for the father, potentially involving boarding school and international placement.
- •Mother opposed, seeking the child's return upon securing suitable housing.
- •The applicant, father and guardian changed positions to support a care order with generous contact for the father.
- •The child spent time overseas with his father during proceedings.
- •The child expressed strong opposition to boarding school and a preference to remain in his current foster care.
- •Mother's history of physical chastisement, verbal abuse of the child, and housing instability contributed to the case.
- •The threshold for a care order (significant harm) was not disputed.
Legal Principles
The paramount consideration is the child's welfare.
Section 1(3) Children Act 1989
Presumption in favour of a relationship with both parents, if safe.
Section 1(3) Children Act 1989
Legal threshold for care order: significant harm (section 31 Children Act 1989).
Section 31 Children Act 1989
Article 8 ECHR: right to respect for private and family life; state intervention must be proportionate.
Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Care order granted.
The child's welfare necessitates a care order to provide consistent, predictable, and safe care, given the mother's history of abuse, housing instability, and reluctance to engage with support services. The current foster placement provides stability and enables positive contact with both parents.
Return to the mother's care rejected.
High risk of repeating harmful behaviour due to unresolved issues surrounding the mother’s emotional regulation, mental health and insufficient engagement with support services. The judge highlighted that housing issues alone are not the sole cause for the current situation.
Generous contact with both parents maintained.
Given the child's age and maturity, and the cooperative nature of both parents despite their difficult past, the court favours allowing relatively open contact that enables the child to manage his relationship with his mother in a way that suits his well-being.