B and G (Children), Re [2023] EWFC 225 (B) (30 November 2023)

B and G (Children), Re [2023] EWFC 225 (B) (30 November 2023)

The threshold for making Care Orders under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is met due to the mother's inability to consistently meet the children's needs, resulting in significant emotional harm. For B, a Care Order with long-term foster care is necessary and proportionate, as his complex needs cannot be met by the mother...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 225 (B)
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: The Mother; 2nd Respondent: G (child); 3rd Respondent: B (child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Care Orders made for both children (B and G); B to remain in long-term foster care; G to move to a new foster placement with aspiration for future reunification with mother.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Checklist, Parental Responsibility, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Children's Wishes and Feelings
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Supervision Orders Threshold Criteria Welfare Checklist Parental Responsibility Article 8 ECHR +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

The Mother

1st Respondent

G (child)

2nd Respondent

B (child)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether G can safely return to her mother's care now
  2. 2 Whether a Care Order should be made for G with aspiration of reunification
  3. 3 Whether G should be subject to a Care Order or Supervision Order

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for making Care Orders under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is met due to the mother's inability to consistently meet the children's needs, resulting in significant emotional harm. For B, a Care Order with long-term foster care is necessary and proportionate, as his complex needs cannot be met by the mother at this time. For G, despite her strong wishes to return home, the risks associated with the mother's mental health and the lack of a viable support plan mean that a Care Order is necessary to safeguard her welfare, with an aspiration for future reunification. The making of Care Orders is a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights, justified by the need to protect the...

Court Disposition

Care Orders made for both children (B and G); B to remain in long-term foster care; G to move to a new foster placement with aspiration for future reunification with mother.

Orders

  • Care Order for B: long-term foster care as per Local Authority plan
  • Care Order for G: foster care placement with aspiration for reunification