Whilst the previous authorities highlighted that exceptional circumstances are not required to justify the need for a Care Order with the child placed at home, the President of the Family Division in JW highlighted the conclusions of the Public Law Working Group, identifying the need for 'exceptional reasons' to justify the making of a Care Order with a plan for the child to be living at home, noting that it will 'be rare in the extreme that the risks of significant harm to the child are judged to be sufficient to merit the making of a Care Order but, nevertheless, the risks can be managed with a Care Order being made in favour of the Local Authority with the child remaining in the care of the parent.
Ultimately, having regard to 'G's welfare, this Court does not conclude that the risks of harm to 'G' are judged to be sufficient to merit the making of a Care Order. There are, in the specific circumstances of this case, no clear safeguarding features consequent upon a Care Order being made, over the protections afforded by and features of a Supervision Order. The existence of Care Order would not, in this Court's judgement, place the Local Authority in a significantly different position with regard to removal in an emergency situation than would otherwise be the case.
Having regard to the duration of any Supervision Order, the Local Authority submitted that any such Order should be for a period of six months, having regard to the fact that the mother's CAT will have concluded within that period and the child will have reached the age of sixteen. Whilst the making of a Supervision Order is a clear interference with the Article 8 rights of 'G' and her mother, in this Court's judgement, a Supervision Order of six months' duration is necessary and is made in accordance with law and with the legitimate aim of promoting 'G's welfare. In this Court's judgement, that interference is necessary and is a proportionate response, having regard to the risks and having regard to the welfare evaluation. On the facts of the case, the interference in the Article 8 rights of 'G' and her mother that would result from a Supervision Order is a necessary interference and one that is proportionate to the essential end of promoting 'G's welfare, having regard to Article 8(2) of the European Convention.
A Supervision Support Plan has been provided by the Local Authority. It set out a plan of social work visits weekly for the first four weeks following 'G's return home, reducing to fortnightly visits and then monthly visits with a Child In Need review every 6 weeks. The plan envisages a referral to the Central Specialist Adolescent Service to work with families to address complex family dysfunction or separation, for 12-week support. Further, the plan envisages the mother's continued engagement with CAT and support services recommended by the treating psychologist, support from ARC rapid response team, if difficulties are experienced with her relationship with 'G' if the mother feels she is unable to manage, support from family through the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt if respite support is required and for the mother to ensure 'G' attends all appointments offered to her through CAMHS.
The Court would expect the support to this family from the Local Authority to also include the provision of a Life Coach, which the professionals consider to be necessary. This Court is far from clear why the Local Authority has indicated it would be able to provide such support inhouse to families under a Care Order but not under a Supervision Order.
The mother agrees to the support proposed by the Local Authority in its support plan. The Court understands that the Children's Guardian has no additional proposals to be included in the support plan.
In expectation of the supervision support plan, it is envisaged that 'G' could return to the care of her mother following the handing down of judgment on 30 November 2023.
I turn to consider the contested issue of 'B's contact with his mother and sister. 'B's contact with his mother is taking place once each week. It takes place without any professional supervision, a situation that has persisted since June 2023. Contact ordinarily takes place on a Saturday. The Local Authority provides for up to four hours contact between 'B' and his mother.
The mother has attended contact consistently, without fail, each week. However, the full four hours of available time is not utilised by her. 'B' is generally returned to his foster carer by the mother after two hours. The mother tells the Court that 'B' enjoys activity-based contact, including swimming or bowling. The mother tells the Court that contact takes place in a rural location where activities are limited. Presently, she is not permitted, by conditions imposed by the Local Authority, to drive 'B' in a car during the contact time, limiting her ability to travel to another activity. Further, having regard to 'B's particular needs, he does not like crowded places and does not like to travel by public transport, including by bus or train. The mother submits that 'B' would benefit from her being able to drive him to a second subsequent activity in another area, whereby she could spend longer time with him. She proposes spending a whole day with 'B'. She wishes to be able to take him to the family home.
The Local Authority does not support a longer period of contact for 'B' with his mother. The Local Authority does not support the mother driving 'B' in a car. Further, the Local Authority does not support contact for 'B' taking place in the family home.
The Children's Guardian submits that she would wish to see the mother utilise the full four hours of available contact before moving to a longer period of contact. The Children's Guardian agrees to the mother's proposal to remove of the restriction on the mother driving 'B' in her car, subject to the mother's mental health remaining stable. The Guardian considers that removing this restriction will allow the mother to spend her time appropriately with 'B' at more than one contact location. The Children's Guardian is clear that the mother should not take 'B' to the family home during contact. In this regard, the Guardian agrees with the Local Authority that it would be emotionally harmful for 'B', who will remain a 'looked after' child, to be taken to his former family home for the purposes of contact with his mother. The Guardian considered that it would be really difficult for 'B' at the end of contact to have to leave the family home and return to his foster care placement, having regard to his complex needs and the historical difficulties experienced by the mother in early 2023 in getting 'B' to leave home in order to attend school.
In this regard, I find no reason to disagree with the reasons expressed by the Children's Guardian. First, there would appear to be no solid evidenced-based reason to conclude that the current restrictions imposed by the Local Authority on prohibiting the mother from driving 'B' during contact should continue. Second, the existing permitted contact arrangements of four hours are consistently being brought to an end by the mother after two hours. There is no solid welfare-based reason to conclude that the mother could manage 'B's welfare needs for one full day, when presently she terminates contact early after two hours. If, with the benefit of being able to drive 'B' to another activity, the mother could consistently engage 'B' in four hours of contact, without it impacting negatively on his welfare, the Court would expect the Local Authority during its ongoing reviews, to consider an increase in the contact time 'B' spends with his mother, having regard also to the impact on 'G' of the mother spending longer periods of time with 'B' away from the family home. There are patently very strong welfare reasons for 'B's contact not to take place at the family home, for the reasons articulated by the Children's Guardian and by the social worker. Contact for 'B' at the family home would inevitably cause him distress, knowing that 'G' could remain in the home but he was required to leave to return to his foster care placement. The Local Authority would be expected to keep the matter under review as part of its ongoing Looked After Child review process. The Court invites the Local Authority to amend its care plan for 'B' in so far as the plan prohibits the mother from driving during contact. In other respect, the Court endorses the Local Authority's care plan for 'B'. A section 34 contact Order, as sought by the mother, is not necessary.
Conclusion
In summary, the Court makes the following Orders:
(a) A Care Order for 'B', endorsing the Local Authority's care plan in respect of contact, save that the Court invites the Local Authority to remove the prohibition in respect of driving; and
(b) A Supervision Order for 'G', with the plan for 'G' to return to her mother's care forthwith, at the conclusion of these proceedings, endorsing the Local Authority's Supervision Order support plan, with the additional provision of the need for a life coach.
His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy
November 2023