Family carers v delay.

Harris, Alexandra Conroy

P (Children) [2012]

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Ward, McFarlane & Smith LLJ

7 March 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 401

A was born in April 2008 and was the youngest of a group of five siblings removed from their parents' care in 2009. While the other four children were subject to a planned and intensively supported return home, A was found to need an alternative long-term placement. A's aunt and uncle, Mr and Mrs B, put themselves forward as potential carers for him and underwent a full assessment. The assessing social worker was positive about the care that Mr and Mrs B could offer, but raised concerns about the family dynamics and concluded that she could not recommend placement under a special guardianship order unless Mr and Mrs B were prepared to move house, away from the area in which the parents and extended family lived. As a result of the report, Mr and Mrs B, being unable to move house immediately for other reasons, initially withdrew their application to care for A, but shortly after wards wrote to the social workers suggesting other ways in which they would be able to limit A's contact with the birth family. Mr and Mrs B were under the impression that their suggestions were being considered, but at the next court hearing the local authority sought and obtained a final care order and a placement order. The parents applied for an adjournment for Mr and Mrs B to put their case. The judge noted that Mr and Mrs B were not in court (they had been unable to take the time off work at short notice) and had not filed statements or applications to be joined to the proceedings. He found that A needed a secure placement and that he did not have the information available to balance the delay for A against the possibilities offered by Mr and Mrs B.

Held

The Court of Appeal found that the judge had not explained in his judgment that he had considered the request for an adjournment and balanced it against the need to avoid delay for the child. Neither the local authority, children's guardian nor the court had made it adequately clear to Mr and Mrs B at an earlier stage that they needed to be involved with the court process, nor was it clear to them that the local authority was not still considering them as potential carers. The process had been procedurally unfair, and the parents' appeal against the care and placement order would be granted.

Comment

This case illustrates the importance of involving the wider family fully at the earliest possible stage. Without giving any opinion on the merits of either case, the court pointed out that the court's decision would have a huge impact on A's life and that it was therefore necessary for a procedurally sound process to be followed. Mr and Mrs B should have been given a copy of the assessment report and invited to be involved in the proceedings if they still wished to be considered as carers for A. Although the intention of the court and local authority had been to avoid delay for A, the likely effect has been to put a final decision back by four or five months.

Alexandra Conroy Harris, BAAF's Legal Consultant, prepared these notes