Re M (Children) (Interim Care Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2006 |
| Date | 2006 |
| Year | 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Family proceedings – Interim care order – Care plan for immediate removal of child – Whether sufficient evidence of risk of harm to justify prolonging child’s removal to foster care – Whether judge sufficiently considering potential risk to child from prolonged removal.
Public law care proceedings were issued by the local authority in respect of the parents’ six children, aged from two to 15 years. An interim care order was subsequently made in respect of the four youngest children on a care plan for their immediate removal. R, aged two, was removed from the family to foster care. The local authority was unable to implement the plan in respect of the other three children. The parents challenged the removal of R. At the subsequent hearing in May 2005, the judge took account of evidence from, inter alia, the children’s guardian, who opposed the parents’ endeavours to have R returned to them based on historical concerns, the parents’ failure to cope with professionals and minimise the effect of domestic violence, and deficiencies in their parenting skills. The judge decided to continue R’s retention in foster care until at least March 2006, which was the earliest date for a final hearing in the care proceedings following professional assessment. The mother appealed against that decision. She was supported by the father, and by the eldest child. The local authority and the guardian of the remaining children opposed the appeal. The mother contended that there had simple been insufficient evidence of risk of harm to R to satisfy the statutory test, and that the judge had failed to consider the effect of such prolonged removal on a child as young as R.
Held – In the circumstances of the instant case, the judge had erred in placing too much weight on the speculative concerns of the guardian, and in failing to deliver a balanced judgment which reflected the potential risk to R of extended separation from her family. The singular feature of the instant case was that the local authority had failed to remove from a volatile family the three children most at risk of harm, given the full history, and that failure inevitably diminished the strength of the local authority’s case for the extended removal of R. The judge’s order prolonging R’s removal would, accordingly, be set aside and the appeal would be allowed.
Case referred to in judgmentsH (a child) (interim care order), Re[2002] EWCA Civ 1932, [2003] 1 FCR 350.
AppealThe mother appealed against the decision of Judge Elly, sitting at Reading County Court, whereby the judge decided to continue R’s retention in foster care until at least March 2006, which was the earliest date for a final hearing in the care proceedings following professional assessment. The father and eldest child supported the mother. The local authority and the guardian of the remaining children opposed the appeal. The facts are set out in the judgment of Thorpe LJ.
Madeleine Reardon for the mother.
Sarah Forster for the local authority.
Leo Cogin for the father.
Markanza Cudby for the eldest child.
Gabrielle Posner for the guardian.
THORPE LJ.[1] The local authority issued public law care proceedings in relation to six children in May of this year. The children are all the children of their married parents. They are respectively J, 15; LA, 14; LE, 12; LU 11; P, nine; and R, two. There was a hearing in the Family Proceedings Court on 25 May. The parents did not attend and have since asserted that they had not been notified of the hearing. That is very much in dispute and neither the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X (Children) and Another
...FLR 807. LA (Care: Chronic Neglect), Re[2009] EWCA Civ 822, [2010] 1 FLR 80. M (children) (interim care order), Re[2005] EWCA Civ 1594, [2006] 1 FCR 303, [2006] 1 FLR M (Children), Re[2014] EWHC 667 (Fam). M (Children), Re[2015] EWHC 1433 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 204 (May). R (a child) (pro......
-
L (A Child)
...(Minors) (Interim Care Order)[1993] 2 FCR 557, Re H (a child) (interim care order)[2003] 1 FCR 350, Re M (children) (interim care order)[2006] 1 FCR 303, Re K and H [2007] 1 FLR 2043, Re LA (Care: Chronic Neglect) [2010] 1 FLR 80, Re B (a child) (interim care order)[2010] 1 FCR 114, Re B (I......
-
A Local Authority v KAB and Others
...proceedings: interim care order), Re[2009] EWCA Civ 822, [2010] 1 FLR 80. M (children) (interim care order), Re[2005] EWCA Civ 1594, [2006] 1 FCR 303, [2006] 1 FLR Piglowska v Piglowski[1999] 2 FCR 481, [1999] 3 All ER 632, [1999] 1 WLR 1360, [1999] 2 FLR 763, HL. AppealA local authority so......
-
Re B (A Child) (Interim Care Order)
...M (A Minor) (Order Pending Appeal), Re[1994] 1 FCR 1, [1994] 1 FLR 54, CA. M (children) (interim care order), Re[2005] EWCA Civ 1594, [2006] 1 FCR 303, [2006] 1 FLR AppealThe local authority and the guardian of KB, a two-year-old child, sought permission to appeal against the dismissal by J......