Gloucestershire County Council v M

Gloucestershire County Council v M

The court found that the mother caused non-accidental injury to Ch and persistently lied about it, that both parents failed to protect Ch, that the father posed ongoing risk due to his behaviour, history, and inability to work with professionals, and that neither parent nor the family support network could provide safe or adequate care. The only proportionate and welfare-consistent solution was to make care and placement orders, dispensing with parental consent to adoption, as no other option would safeguard Ch's welfare.

Parties
Applicant: Gloucestershire County Council; First Respondent: M; Second Respondent: F; Third Respondent: Ch (by his guardian, Alison Clutterbuck)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Judgment After Composite Fact Finding and Welfare Hearing
Outcome
Care order and placement order granted; parental consent to adoption dispensed with.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Non Accidental Injury, Parental Responsibility, Threshold Criteria, Domestic Abuse, Expert Evidence, Article 8 ECHR, Dispensing With Parental Consent, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Child Protection Adoption Law Care Orders Placement Orders Non Accidental Injury Parental Responsibility Threshold Criteria +5 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloucestershire County Council

Applicant

M

First Respondent

F

Second Respondent

Ch (by his guardian, Alison Clutterbuck)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Judgment After Composite Fact Finding and Welfare Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are met
  2. 2 Whether care and placement orders should be made for Ch
  3. 3 Whether parental consent to adoption should be dispensed with under section 52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mother caused non-accidental injury to Ch and persistently lied about it, that both parents failed to protect Ch, that the father posed ongoing risk due to his behaviour, history, and inability to work with professionals, and that neither parent nor the family support network could provide safe or adequate care. The only proportionate and welfare-consistent solution was to make care and placement orders, dispensing with parental consent to adoption, as no other option would safeguard Ch's welfare.

Court Disposition

Care order and placement order granted; parental consent to adoption dispensed with.

Orders

  • Care order to Gloucestershire County Council based on the approved care plan
  • Order dispensing with the consent of both parents to the placing of Ch for adoption under section 52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002