Swindon Borough Council v B & Ors: Welfare of Child Paramount in Care and Placement Orders Case

Citation: [2024] EWFC 8 (B)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Swindon Borough Council v B & Ors [2024] EWFC 8 (B) addresses the application by Swindon Borough Council seeking Care and Placement Orders concerning Child A, a young child born into a background of parental Class A drug misuse. The judgement provides insight into how English Family Law, encapsulated in the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, is applied when assessing the welfare and future of a child subject to care proceedings. It also illustrates the role of local authorities in pre-birth interventions and the potential legal implications of their actions or inactions.

Key Facts

Child A, born on 16 June 2023, comes from a background where both parents are long-term users of Class A substances and are unable to provide a safe and stable environment. The local authority’s (LA) application stems from concerns about the risk of significant harm due to parental drug misuse. The judgment details both the pre-birth and post-birth circumstances of the child, including the health complications Child A suffered following birth, attributed to the parents’ drug use during pregnancy.

Throughout the case, Ms. Milton, a social worker, highlighted the severity of the situation and made recommendations, and yet, the LA did not offer the inpatient detox treatment that was suggested might be needed. Additionally, the parents were not given adequate support to tackle the underlying causes of their drug misuse within the child’s timescale, raising questions about the LA’s duties and responsibilities.

Several legal principles and statutes form the core of this judgement, particularly focusing on the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration under the Children Act 1989 and Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Welfare of the Child

A central aspect of the case is the application of the Children Act 1989’s overriding principle that a child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration [s1(1) Children Act 1989]. In assessing welfare, the court must have regard to the ‘welfare checklist’ [s1(3) Children Act 1989], including the child’s needs, the capability of the parents to meet those needs, and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

Threshold Criteria

The Court considered the ‘threshold criteria’ under the Children Act 1989 [s31(2)], which must be met for the Court to make a Care Order. The Court found that Child A had suffered significant harm attributable to the care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to provide, mainly due to the parents’ chronic drug misuse.

Delay Principle

The principle in s1(2) of the Children Act 1989 was considered, which suggests that any delay in deciding the question of the child’s upbringing is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare. The Court declined to adjourn the proceedings, considering the best interests and timescales of the child’s need for a stable environment.

Adoption and Placement Orders

Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Court considered the heightened welfare test for adoption as set out in s1(4) and the need to dispense with parental consent for adoption [s52(1)(b)]. The Court needed to be satisfied that adoption was in the best interests of the child, considering all the options available.

Human Rights Considerations

Finally, the Court raised potential issues regarding breaches of Child A’s human rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), relating to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, given the lack of pre-birth intervention by the LA.

Outcomes

The Court concluded that the threshold for significant harm was met, and it was not in the child’s best interests to be placed with the parents. HHJ Caroline Wright ordered Care and Placement Orders in favor of Swindon Borough Council, dispensing with the parents’ consent to adoption, on the grounds that this was necessary to safeguard the child’s welfare.

Conclusion

HHJ Caroline Wright’s judicious application of the relevant legal principles led to the decision that adoption was the only suitable option for Child A, whose early life had been profoundly affected by parental drug misuse. The Court’s refusal to adjourn the proceedings underscores the importance of the child’s welfare timeline in care proceedings.

Furthermore, the postscript raises critical concerns about the obligations of local authorities in pre-birth scenarios and the potential for human rights infringement claims. This case serves as a poignant reminder of the acute need for early and effective interventions for at-risk children and the critical evaluation of local authority protocols.