D (care orders : final hearing) [2020] EWFC B65 (18 November 2020)

D (care orders : final hearing) [2020] EWFC B65 (18 November 2020)

The court found that the mother had persistently failed to engage with professionals, refused to address the children's welfare, and posed a significant risk of physical and emotional harm to the children if they were returned to her care. The father was assessed as able to meet the children's needs, and the children's welfare would be best served by placement with him under care orders, with the local authority permitted to refuse to promote direct contact with the mother due to her conduct.

Citation
[2020] EWFC B65
Parties
Mother / First Respondent: RD; Father: TM; Child: SM; Child: NM; Applicant: Local Authority; Children's Guardian: PB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (public Law, Children) / Final Welfare Hearing
Outcome
Care orders made in respect of both children; orders under s.34(4) Children Act 1989 permitting the local authority to refuse to promote direct contact with the mother; endorsement of the local authority's care plans.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Parental Responsibility, Contact Arrangements, Welfare Checklist, Section 34(4) Children Act 1989, Threshold Criteria
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Parental Responsibility Contact Arrangements Welfare Checklist Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RD

Mother / First Respondent

TM

Father

SM

Child

NM

Child

Local Authority

Applicant

PB

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (public Law, Children) / Final Welfare Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children should be placed with their father under care orders
  2. 2 Whether the local authority should be permitted to refuse to promote direct contact between the mother and the children
  3. 3 Whether the mother's conduct and refusal to engage with professionals poses a risk to the children's welfare

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mother had persistently failed to engage with professionals, refused to address the children's welfare, and posed a significant risk of physical and emotional harm to the children if they were returned to her care. The father was assessed as able to meet the children's needs, and the children's welfare would be best served by placement with him under care orders, with the local authority permitted to refuse to promote direct contact with the mother due to her conduct.

Court Disposition

Care orders made in respect of both children; orders under s.34(4) Children Act 1989 permitting the local authority to refuse to promote direct contact with the mother; endorsement of the local authority's care plans.

Orders

  • Care orders in respect of SM and NM placing them with their father under the supervision of the local authority.
  • Order under s.34(4) Children Act 1989 permitting the local authority to refuse to promote direct contact between the mother and the children.