D - R (Children), Re [2013] EWCC B5 (Fam) (10 October 2013)

D - R (Children), Re [2013] EWCC B5 (Fam) (10 October 2013)

The threshold for intervention was met due to findings of non-accidental injury and neglect. None of the parents were able to provide safe, appropriate long-term care. Adoption was necessary for the five younger children as no other realistic options would secure their welfare and permanency; for the eldest, long-term foster care was appropriate. The welfare of each child required dispensing with parental consent for placement orders. Direct sibling contact was important but could not override the need for permanency and security through adoption or foster care. The court approved the local authority's care and placement plans, with time-limited searches for adoptive placements for David...

Citation
[2013] EWCC B5 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant / Local Authority: Leicester City Council; Respondent / Mother: HJ (the mother); Respondent / Father: CD (father of Ian, David, James); Respondent / Father: KR (father of Sarah, Rachel, Peter); Subjects / Children: Children (Ian, David, James, Sarah, Rachel, Peter)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Proceedings (public Law Children) / Final Judgment on Care and Placement Orders
Outcome
Care orders made for all six children; placement orders made for the five younger children; parental consent dispensed with for placement orders; care and placement plans as proposed by the local authority approved.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Sibling Contact, Parental Responsibility, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Checklist, Dispensing With Parental Consent
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Sibling Contact Parental Responsibility Threshold Criteria +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leicester City Council

Applicant / Local Authority

HJ (the mother)

Respondent / Mother

CD (father of Ian, David, James)

Respondent / Father

KR (father of Sarah, Rachel, Peter)

Respondent / Father

Children (Ian, David, James, Sarah, Rachel, Peter)

Subjects / Children

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Proceedings (public Law Children) / Final Judgment on Care and Placement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether care orders and placement orders should be made for six children
  2. 2 Whether adoption is the appropriate outcome for the five younger children
  3. 3 How sibling and parental contact should be managed post-placement

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for intervention was met due to findings of non-accidental injury and neglect. None of the parents were able to provide safe, appropriate long-term care. Adoption was necessary for the five younger children as no other realistic options would secure their welfare and permanency; for the eldest, long-term foster care was appropriate. The welfare of each child required dispensing with parental consent for placement orders. Direct sibling contact was important but could not override the need for permanency and security through adoption or foster care. The court approved the local authority's care and placement plans, with time-limited searches for adoptive placements for David...

Court Disposition

Care orders made for all six children; placement orders made for the five younger children; parental consent dispensed with for placement orders; care and placement plans as proposed by the local authority approved.

Orders

  • Final care orders for Ian, David, James, Sarah, Rachel, and Peter.
  • Placement orders for David, James, Sarah, Rachel, and Peter.