I recently shadowed a week-long public law child matter where the local authority (“LA”) sought care and placement orders. The case included unfortunate aspects, ultimately resulting in the LA succeeding. The mother and father had successfully conceived through IVF; concerns were raised during the pregnancy which led to an interim care order being made shortly after the child’s birth. By the time of the making of the care and placement orders, the child had just turned two and had been involved in care proceedings for almost her entire life.
The parents and their child had been placed in a residential assessment for six months, the records of this placement therefore formed a large part of the evidence regarding the parents’ ability to care for the child. During the hearing, it transpired that the manager of the residential assessment had not received information regarding the parents’ cognitive assessment, where both had been assigned IQ levels in the sixties, until six weeks into the placement. The manager of the placement indicated in evidence that had he known the level of assistance that would be required, he may not have accepted the placement and that twice as much support was required to keep the child safe. This was increasingly unfortunate for the parents as the cognitive assessment should have been provided ahead of their attendance at the placement and was available.
The LA’s concern with the parents were their respective abilities to understand their child’s needs. There were concerns with cooking and bathing, as well as being able to meet the child’s emotional needs through play and affection. Expert evidence was given by a medical professional who confirmed that the parents had learning disabilities, making it hard for them to develop and retain parenting skills, despite their desire to be good parents.
The parents were in the unfortunate position where they felt they had been set up to fail due to the residential placement not having the necessary cognitive information for six weeks. The LA were able to reduce the impact of this through evidence being given that many of the necessary adjustments were made prior to receiving the cognitive assessment.
The advocates for the parents made valiant submissions addressing the sad nature of the case, the love the parents have for their child, the assurances the parents would be able to care for them, and the parent’s willingness to be assessed again. It was also argued that small matters, such as forgetting to turn a cooker on, were incorrectly included in the threshold.
Counsel for the Guardian persuasively argued the necessity of care and placement orders by addressing the various issues with the parents’ attitude and understanding of how to care for their child, as well as highlighting the welfare risks of them being unable to pick up on emotional cues. They agreed however that the parents had tried their best, but it was not enough.
This case stood out to me due to how sad the situation was. It was a case where the parents dreamed of raising a child and successfully conceived via IVF. Despite the parents’ palpable love for their child and the issues with the LA’s evidence, the judge had to make care and placement orders to protect the welfare of the child. There had been multiple residential assessments, with some development, however it was ultimately too little too late. The case is also a reminder that despite the excellent advocacy for the parents and fundamental issues with the LA’s case, the judge in these cases must always put the welfare of the child first and will likely place weight on the evidence of professionals and experts unless there is a compelling reason to depart from their recommendations.
For more information about our family team please contact clerks@becket-chambers.co.uk
