B and G (Children), Re

B and G (Children), Re

The threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 were met for both children due to the mother's mental health and resulting emotional harm. For B, a Care Order with long-term foster care was necessary and proportionate to protect his welfare, with the mother's consent. For G, the risks had reduced, the mother's engagement with support was positive, and the harm of further foster placements outweighed the risks of immediate reunification. A Supervision Order for G, with a robust support plan, was the least interventionist and proportionate order to meet her welfare needs. The Local Authority's care plan for B's contact was endorsed, save for the prohibition on the mother...

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: The Mother; 2nd Respondent: G (Child); 3rd Respondent: B (Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Care and Supervision Orders (children) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Care Order for B; Supervision Order for G; endorsement of care and support plans with modifications.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Parental Responsibility, Article 8 ECHR, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Principle, Proportionality, Contact Arrangements
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Supervision Orders Parental Responsibility Article 8 ECHR Threshold Criteria Welfare Principle +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

The Mother

1st Respondent

G (Child)

2nd Respondent

B (Child)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care and Supervision Orders (children) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are met for both children
  2. 2 Whether a Care Order or Supervision Order is appropriate for each child
  3. 3 Whether G should return to her mother's care immediately or remain in foster care

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 were met for both children due to the mother's mental health and resulting emotional harm. For B, a Care Order with long-term foster care was necessary and proportionate to protect his welfare, with the mother's consent. For G, the risks had reduced, the mother's engagement with support was positive, and the harm of further foster placements outweighed the risks of immediate reunification. A Supervision Order for G, with a robust support plan, was the least interventionist and proportionate order to meet her welfare needs. The Local Authority's care plan for B's contact was endorsed, save for the prohibition on the mother...

Court Disposition

Care Order for B; Supervision Order for G; endorsement of care and support plans with modifications.

Orders

  • Care Order for B with long-term foster care and endorsed contact plan, save for removal of prohibition on mother driving B during contact.
  • Supervision Order for G for six months, with immediate return to mother's care and endorsement of the Local Authority's support plan, including provision of a life coach.