A Local Authority v M & Ors (previously ‘D and E (Parent with Autism) [2020] EWFC B18)

A Local Authority v M & Ors (previously ‘D and E (Parent with Autism) [2020] EWFC B18)

The Court found that, while the threshold for public law intervention was crossed, the Local Authority and professionals failed to make sufficient reasonable adjustments for the mother's Autism Spectrum Disorder during assessments. New expert evidence demonstrated that, with targeted support and the maternal uncle's involvement, the mother could provide good enough parenting to D and E. The welfare of D and E did not demand separation from their mother. For A and B, a Special Guardianship Order with the maternal grandparents was in their best interests. For C, long-term foster care under a Care Order was appropriate; adoption was not justified. The Local Authority's applications for Care...

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent (mother): M; Second Respondent (father): F; Third Respondent (maternal Uncle): U; Fourth to Eighth Respondents: A, B, C, D and E (children, through their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Judgment After Adjourned Final Hearing and Further Expert Evidence
Outcome
Applications for Care and Placement Orders for D and E dismissed; Special Guardianship Order for A and B; Care Order for C; Supervision and Child Arrangements Orders for D and E; Declaration of Parentage and Parental Responsibility Order for F regarding E.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Special Guardianship Orders, Supervision Orders, Child Arrangements Orders, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Parenting, Parental Responsibility, Adoption, Threshold Criteria, Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Parents
Family Law Child Protection Disability Law Care Orders Special Guardianship Orders Supervision Orders Child Arrangements Orders Autism Spectrum Disorder and Parenting +4 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

M

First Respondent (mother)

F

Second Respondent (father)

U

Third Respondent (maternal Uncle)

A, B, C, D and E (children, through their Children’s Guardian)

Fourth to Eighth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Judgment After Adjourned Final Hearing and Further Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the welfare of the children A, B, C, D, and E required removal from parental care and/or placement for adoption
  2. 2 Whether the mother’s Autism Spectrum Disorder and the support available enabled her to parent D and E safely
  3. 3 Whether the Local Authority and professionals made reasonable adjustments for the mother’s disability

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, while the threshold for public law intervention was crossed, the Local Authority and professionals failed to make sufficient reasonable adjustments for the mother's Autism Spectrum Disorder during assessments. New expert evidence demonstrated that, with targeted support and the maternal uncle's involvement, the mother could provide good enough parenting to D and E. The welfare of D and E did not demand separation from their mother. For A and B, a Special Guardianship Order with the maternal grandparents was in their best interests. For C, long-term foster care under a Care Order was appropriate; adoption was not justified. The Local Authority's applications for Care...

Court Disposition

Applications for Care and Placement Orders for D and E dismissed; Special Guardianship Order for A and B; Care Order for C; Supervision and Child Arrangements Orders for D and E; Declaration of Parentage and Parental Responsibility Order for F regarding E.

Orders

  • Special Guardianship Order for A and B in favour of maternal grandparents
  • Care Order for C in favour of Local Authority (long-term foster care)