The District Court made care orders for two children, R and C, until 1 August 2019 and directed the Child and Family Agency to plan their phased return to their parents’ care. The court rejected the agency’s request for orders lasting until each child turned 18, finding that such orders would not be necessary or proportionate.
Judge Marie Quirke said the statutory threshold for state intervention had been met, but that a shorter order better reflected the children’s welfare and their right to family life. The application was brought under section 18(2) of the Childcare Act 1991. The parents sought the children’s return and reunification of the family; the agency and guardian ad litem supported care orders until adulthood.
The children had been in care with their older sibling, H, since earlier orders made in 2014 and 2016. H returned to the parents in December 2017. The court heard there had been no child protection concerns about H brought to its attention since the return, and that the parents had worked positively with a family support practitioner. Both parents acknowledged past behaviour and sought reunification with R and C.
The earlier proceedings had found physical chastisement of H and R, domestic violence and instability between the parents. In this case, the judge accepted evidence that the parents had made progress, while noting continuing concerns about how stress could affect their parenting. The court accepted the psychologist’s oral evidence that both parents had capacity to parent and nurture, with some deficits, but expressed serious reservations about the methodology behind the psychologist’s written assessment. Some interviews and observations had been conducted by a doctoral student rather than the psychologist. The judge gave no weight to play therapists’ opinions about the long-term meaning of the children’s presentations or what orders should be made.
The court said R and C clearly wished to return home and also wanted to maintain relationships with their foster carers. It directed the agency to plan a phased return, with full-time care by the parents to begin on 2 August 2019, after the children finished their current school year. The agency was also directed to consider whether to apply for a supervision order, provide family support, and source therapy for the mother and H, for the mother’s self-esteem and confidence, and for the father to help him manage anger. The judgment records those directions as proposed under section 47 and says the agency could seek a supervision order if it considered one necessary.