Q (Children) (Hair strand testing), Re

Q (Children) (Hair strand testing), Re

The threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 were met due to the mother's mental health, learning difficulties, and substance misuse, and the risk of significant harm to Joe. However, the evidence did not support that adoption was the only option commensurate with Joe's welfare. The father had demonstrated good enough parenting to his older child, and recent evidence showed abstinence from drugs. The risks arising from the father's past substance misuse and lack of transparency did not outweigh the harm of severing family ties through adoption. Joe's welfare was best served by living with his father under a supervision order, with support and supervised contact with his mother.

Parties
Applicant Local Authority: London Borough of Haringey; Respondent Mother: Q (Mother); Respondent Father: Respondent Father; Child: Child (through Guardian Gosia Rush)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (public Law, Child Protection) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for care order and placement order refused; child to live with father under supervision order; declaration of parentage granted.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Adoption, Substance Misuse, Parental Capacity, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Checklist, Declaration of Parentage
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Supervision Orders Adoption Substance Misuse Parental Capacity 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Haringey

Applicant Local Authority

Q (Mother)

Respondent Mother

Respondent Father

Respondent Father

Child (through Guardian Gosia Rush)

Child

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (public Law, Child Protection) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 are met for Joe
  2. 2 Whether Joe's welfare requires a care order, supervision order, or adoption
  3. 3 Assessment of parental capacity and substance misuse

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 were met due to the mother's mental health, learning difficulties, and substance misuse, and the risk of significant harm to Joe. However, the evidence did not support that adoption was the only option commensurate with Joe's welfare. The father had demonstrated good enough parenting to his older child, and recent evidence showed abstinence from drugs. The risks arising from the father's past substance misuse and lack of transparency did not outweigh the harm of severing family ties through adoption. Joe's welfare was best served by living with his father under a supervision order, with support and supervised contact with his mother.

Court Disposition

Application for care order and placement order refused; child to live with father under supervision order; declaration of parentage granted.

Orders

  • Refusal of care order and placement order for adoption
  • Child arrangements order: Joe to live with his father