A Local Authority v EL & Ors

A Local Authority v EL & Ors

The court found that EA’s welfare required stability and consistency, which could not be provided by her father due to his inability to protect her from harm, lack of transparency, and the instability of multiple carers. The Special Guardianship Order appointing MT as Special Guardian was necessary and proportionate to protect EA from significant emotional and physical harm, and was in her best interests. The father’s applications for a Supervision Order and Child Arrangements Order were dismissed as they would not provide the required stability or protection.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: EL (Mother); Second Respondent: TA (Father); Third Respondent: MT (Proposed Special Guardian); Fourth Respondent: EA (A Child) (By her Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Public Law Children Proceedings (special Guardianship Order, Children Act 1989) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Special Guardianship Order granted; father’s applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Guardianship Order, Child Arrangements, Supervision Order, Parental Responsibility, Welfare of the Child, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Special Guardianship Order Child Arrangements Supervision Order Parental Responsibility Welfare of the Child Article 8 ECHR

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

EL (Mother)

First Respondent

TA (Father)

Second Respondent

MT (Proposed Special Guardian)

Third Respondent

EA (A Child) (By her Guardian)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Public Law Children Proceedings (special Guardianship Order, Children Act 1989) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Special Guardianship Order should be made appointing MT as EA’s Special Guardian
  2. 2 Whether the father’s application for a Supervision Order and Child Arrangements Order should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the threshold under section 31 Children Act 1989 is met

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that EA’s welfare required stability and consistency, which could not be provided by her father due to his inability to protect her from harm, lack of transparency, and the instability of multiple carers. The Special Guardianship Order appointing MT as Special Guardian was necessary and proportionate to protect EA from significant emotional and physical harm, and was in her best interests. The father’s applications for a Supervision Order and Child Arrangements Order were dismissed as they would not provide the required stability or protection.

Court Disposition

Special Guardianship Order granted; father’s applications dismissed

Orders

  • A Special Guardianship Order is made appointing MT as EA’s Special Guardian.
  • The Prohibited Steps Order is varied to prohibit the mother from being on the road the father lives on or in the father’s home whilst he has contact with EA until further order.