BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Local Authority A v W (A Child) [2024] EWFC 451 (B) (21 October 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/451.html
Cite as: [2024] EWFC 451 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWFC 451 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT

21 October 2024

B e f o r e :

HER HONOUR JUDGE JONES
____________________

Local Authority A
Applicant
- and -

W (A CHILD)
Respondents

____________________

Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR S MAHMOOD appeared on behalf of the Applicant - Local Authority A
MS S BUXTON appeared on behalf of the mother
MS S DUNN appeared on behalf of the child (through her children's guardian)
MS J CLAXTON appeared on behalf of the father
MS B STIRLING appeared on behalf of Local Authority B.

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. HHJ JONES: I am concerned with W, who is 15 months old. The children's guardian is appointed to consider W's interests at this hearing. W is the subject of public law proceedings issued by Local Authority A on 6 July 2023. This is therefore week 68 of those proceedings. At this hearing, the local authority are represented by Mr Mahmood, the mother by Ms Buxton on the instruction of the official solicitor, the father by Ms Claxton of counsel, W by Ms Dunn of counsel on the instruction of the children's guardian. Local Authority B have also been in attendance at this hearing as they are the proposed designated local authority. They have been represented by Ms Stirling of counsel.
  2. This hearing was listed for an issues resolution hearing or early final hearing. I have dealt with this hearing by way of submissions, given the issue to be determined was whether proceedings concluded on a care order or on a supervision order. The threshold for the purposes of section 31(2) have been conceded and I have been provided with a composite threshold which is contained in the bundle.
  3. The local authority ask that I conclude the case today by making a 12-month supervision order in favour of Local Authority B and a child arrangements order to father and a spend time with order in respect of the mother. This is supported by father. On behalf of the mother, the official solicitor does not support placement with father but does not actively oppose it. The official solicitor asks proceedings be concluded by way of a care order being made rather than a supervision order and child arrangements order. The children's guardian is vehemently opposed to a supervision order at this time and seeks that proceedings conclude with a care order. Local Authority B does not support the making of a supervision order and considers a care order is the appropriate order to be made. I am advised on behalf of Local Authority B that it is likely that, if a care order were made, it would not be approved under placement with parents' regulations in the Local Authority B area.
  4. I have heard detailed submissions from all parties and have read the position statements prepared on their behalf. I have read the papers and I have considered the case of Re JW and the public law working group recommendations to which I have been referred. Time does not allow me to rehearse all of the competing arguments in detail.
  5. The evidence is that father has shown commitment not only to W but to the court process and to working with the local authority. He has undertaken five assessments which recommend he care for W. He has also undergone four hair strand tests which demonstrate continued use of cannabis. I accept the submission that the father's drug misuse must be considered in the context of the other evidence and I further accept that to date his drug use has not impacted on his engagement with W during contact he has enjoyed. However, I share the concerns of the children's guardian and of the OS that the father's ability as a father on a full-time basis is as yet unknown. He has been observed to parent well during contact and there are no concerns raised, however, that has been for a very limited period of time.
  6. I am fully mindful of the guidance in Re JW but consider that this case can be distinguished from that case as W has never been in the full-time care of the father, save for periods of up to 48 hours, and that has only occurred very recently, whereas the children in Re JW had never been away from parental care.
  7. The plan as to how W is to be transitioned into the father's care is unclear and it is also unclear as to what support is going to be provided or indeed what support is going to be needed once W is with the father full time. The father will have the support of his parents, but the level of support they will offer and the need for them to offer that support is as yet untested. Although I have a positive viability assessment of the grandparents, I do not have a full assessment of them and I therefore have limited information about them.
  8. The supervision plan put forward by Local Authority A has, I am told, not been discussed with Local Authority B who would, it is acknowledged, be asked to implement it. Local Authority B have not agreed funding as to who is to supervise contact between mother and W or who is to fund or arrange transportation for the mother to attend the Local Authority B area as provided for in the supervision plan. It is acknowledged by everyone how important W's relationship with the mother is and that it must be preserved.
  9. I accept that if I make orders advocated by the local authority and father, the issue of contact would become one of a private law matter. There is already a dispute as to where the contact should take place and who should supervise it. Both parents indicate that they cannot afford supervision and the mother's vulnerabilities make it difficult for her to travel without assistance. In my view, it is unusual in circumstances where a child has not already been in placement and where there are outstanding issues in relation contact, for the local authority to divest themselves of the oversight, intervention and parental responsibility a care order gives them. Even where there are positive special guardianship assessments, where a child has not been placed previously, a local authority usually requests a period of settling in before pursuing an order which removes their parental responsibility.
  10. The father is a young, inexperienced parent. That is not meant as a criticism of him; it is an observation. Parenting is difficult. At this time, he has not had the responsibility of caring for W 24 hours, seven days a week. He continues to use cannabis, which he appears to date not to have allowed to impact on his care of W. His continued use of cannabis will, in my judgment, prove more difficult for him to balance when W is in his care 24/7. It is also very different parenting for short periods of time as opposed to full-time.
  11. The local authority, in my judgment, need to continue to support W in this placement with the father under a care order, as I accept the submission made on behalf of the child that under a supervision order, they would be reliant on father asking them for help and assistance. Whilst he has done so to date, there is no guarantee that he will do so in the future and this needs to be monitored. This placement needs to be fully supported to avoid it breaking down, because if it were to break down, it would be catastrophic for W, as the only available option at that point would be that she would be adopted in light of the parents' ability not to care for her. I am told that it would be unlikely, given the concerns that Local Authority B have, that they would be able to approve the child remaining in the care of the father under a care order.
  12. Having considered Re JW, I consider this case to fall within the category of exceptional circumstances as envisaged by Re JW, and in the circumstances, I consider a care order to Local Authority A is a necessary and proportionate response to the welfare needs of W which have been my paramount consideration when reaching my decision, having considered each and every factor set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
  13. This transcript has been approved by the Judge

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010