The District Court made a two-year care order for three children after finding their health, development and welfare would likely be avoidably impaired or neglected if they returned to their parents at that time. It declined the Child and Family Agency’s request for orders lasting until each child turned 18, finding that duration was not proportionate or necessary on the evidence before it.
The parents consented to a two-year order. They said they wanted to address substance misuse and housing problems and build their capacity to care for the children. The Agency sought orders until age 18, citing the children’s need for long-term security in their approved kinship placement with their maternal grandparents. The Guardian ad Litem supported that request, particularly because Child 1 had experienced several changes in carers.
The children had first entered voluntary care in December 2012 and were placed with kin. They returned to their parents in February 2013, but later went back to kinship care. An interim care order was granted in April 2013 and extended eight times. The final care order application was heard over two days in May 2014.
The judge found the Agency had met the balance-of-probabilities threshold under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. The decision records evidence of earlier instability, including housing difficulties, substance misuse and domestic violence between the parents, alongside more recent engagement with support services. The father acknowledged the effect of past difficulties on the children and said the parents would continue working toward recovery and improved parenting.
In choosing a two-year term, the court pointed to the parents’ recent progress, their stated motivation, and the absence of expert evidence about the effects of multiple attachment figures within this kinship group. The court said it could review the family’s circumstances before the order expired and could then extend the order to age 18 or consider a supervision order.
The judge directed the case to return to court on a specified date in late 2015 to assess the parents’ progress, engagement with services and attendance at access, and to consider the children’s and parents’ needs and whether the order should be extended. The Agency was directed to provide identified supports to the parents, remedial and therapeutic services for Child 1 and Child 2, and support for the kinship foster carers. The order also provided for the case to return if placements broke down or specified care-planning or staffing issues arose.
The court directed that access be in accordance with section 37 of the Act. It said access arrangements should focus on child-centred dialogue and that either side could apply to court if agreement could not be reached. The court adjourned the costs application generally, with liberty to re-enter.
The judgment prohibits reporting or broadcasting information that could identify any child or party to the proceedings.