C (foster care or family placement) , Re

C (foster care or family placement) , Re

The threshold for a care order is met due to significant emotional harm and risk caused by the special guardians' actions, including poor decision-making, lack of preparation for the child's moves, inability to promote relationships with the paternal family, and lack of openness with professionals. The paternal family in the USA remains a realistic option for future placement, and the local authority acted unfairly in ruling them out without completing assessment. However, immediate placement with the paternal family is not appropriate due to the child's current wishes and need for stability. The child is to remain in long-term foster care under a care order, with the local authority to...

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: Special Guardian 1 (SG1); Second Respondent: Special Guardian 2 (SG2); Third Respondent: Father (F); Fourth Respondent: Child (C); Fifth Respondent: Paternal Aunt 1 (PA1)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (family) / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Care order made; child to remain in long-term foster care; special guardianship orders not discharged; local authority invited to pursue assessment of paternal family for possible future placement; contact arrangements set.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Special Guardianship, Child Welfare, Contact Arrangements, International Placement, Fact Finding, Threshold Criteria
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Special Guardianship Child Welfare Contact Arrangements International Placement Fact Finding +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

Special Guardian 1 (SG1)

First Respondent

Special Guardian 2 (SG2)

Second Respondent

Father (F)

Third Respondent

Child (C)

Fourth Respondent

Paternal Aunt 1 (PA1)

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (family) / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold for care order under section 31 Children Act 1989 is met
  2. 2 Whether child should return to special guardians or remain in foster care
  3. 3 Whether paternal family in USA is a realistic placement option

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for a care order is met due to significant emotional harm and risk caused by the special guardians' actions, including poor decision-making, lack of preparation for the child's moves, inability to promote relationships with the paternal family, and lack of openness with professionals. The paternal family in the USA remains a realistic option for future placement, and the local authority acted unfairly in ruling them out without completing assessment. However, immediate placement with the paternal family is not appropriate due to the child's current wishes and need for stability. The child is to remain in long-term foster care under a care order, with the local authority to...

Court Disposition

Care order made; child to remain in long-term foster care; special guardianship orders not discharged; local authority invited to pursue assessment of paternal family for possible future placement; contact arrangements set.

Orders

  • Care order to local authority for C to remain in long-term foster care
  • Special guardianship orders remain in place