A B C and D (fact-finding and welfare) [2017] EWFC B33 (16 June 2017)
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father, GH, sexually abused B by making her perform oral sex on him during 2014-2015. The threshold for significant harm under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 was met due to sexual abuse, neglect, poor home conditions, and exposure to domestic violence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] EWFC B33
- Parties
- Applicant: Local Authority; Respondent: EF (Mother); Respondent: GH (Father); Guardian: CH (Children's Guardian)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment
- Outcome
- Final care orders made for all four children; placement orders made for C and D.
- Legal Topics
- Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Checklist, Parental Responsibility
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Local Authority
Applicant
EF (Mother)
Respondent
GH (Father)
Respondent
CH (Children's Guardian)
Guardian
Procedural Posture
Care and Placement Order Proceedings / Final Hearing and Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are met for the four children
- 2 Whether final care orders and placement orders should be made for the children
- 3 Whether the allegations of sexual abuse by the father against B are proved on the balance of probabilities
Ratio Decidendi
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father, GH, sexually abused B by making her perform oral sex on him during 2014-2015. The threshold for significant harm under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 was met due to sexual abuse, neglect, poor home conditions, and exposure to domestic violence. The welfare of the children required final care orders for all four children and placement orders for C and D, as no less radical order would suffice to protect their welfare. Adoption for C and D was necessary and proportionate, and the separation of A and B into long-term foster care was justified by their individual needs and best interests.
Court Disposition
Final care orders made for all four children; placement orders made for C and D.
Orders
- Final care orders for A, B, C, and D.
- Placement orders for C and D authorising their adoption.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment