B (Care and Placement Orders) [2014] EWCC B68 (Fam) (20 February 2014)

B (Care and Placement Orders) [2014] EWCC B68 (Fam) (20 February 2014)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that H's acute and chronic subdural injuries were inflicted by D while H was in his sole care, and that the mother failed to protect H by prioritising her relationship with D over her children's welfare. The threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 were met for all three children. Adoption was the only realistic option for H, as 'nothing else will do,' and care orders were necessary for F and G to secure their welfare with their grandmother and aunt.

Citation
[2014] EWCC B68 (Fam)
Parties
Mother: B (the mother); Father of F: C; Father of G: D; Father of H: E; Applicant: Local Authority; Guardian: J
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Hearing
Outcome
Care orders made for F, G, and H; placement order made for H; mother's consent to placement order dispensed with; further applications reserved to the judge.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Threshold Criteria, Welfare of the Child, Article 8 ECHR, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Threshold Criteria Welfare of the Child Article 8 ECHR +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B (the mother)

Mother

C

Father of F

D

Father of G

E

Father of H

Local Authority

Applicant

J

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 are met for F, G, and H
  2. 2 Whether H's injuries were inflicted, and if so, by whom
  3. 3 Whether the mother failed to protect H from harm

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that H's acute and chronic subdural injuries were inflicted by D while H was in his sole care, and that the mother failed to protect H by prioritising her relationship with D over her children's welfare. The threshold criteria under section 31 Children Act 1989 were met for all three children. Adoption was the only realistic option for H, as 'nothing else will do,' and care orders were necessary for F and G to secure their welfare with their grandmother and aunt.

Court Disposition

Care orders made for F, G, and H; placement order made for H; mother's consent to placement order dispensed with; further applications reserved to the judge.

Orders

  • Care order for H
  • Placement order for H (dispensing with mother's consent)