The District Court granted the Child and Family Agency full care orders for O, 16, and P, 10, until each reaches 18, after finding that their health, development and welfare were likely to be adversely affected if they returned to either parent’s care.
The application was brought under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The father, M, consented to the orders and attended the hearing. The mother, N, was represented but absent; the judge said she had not given up-to-date instructions and treated her as not consenting. Both parents had been served. The court heard evidence from an allocated social worker, two doctors and the Guardian Ad Litem. Neither parent gave evidence.
The judge said the children had been in voluntary care from 2010, with a supervision order made briefly that November. After the mother sought to end the voluntary arrangement in 2016, an application under section 17 was dealt with by the court in September that year, and the children remained in the Agency’s care under that section.
The judge accepted uncontroverted evidence that the mother’s involvement and parenting had been inconsistent, and that she had not followed through on agreements with the Agency. The evidence also described periods of stabilisation and some insight by the mother into risks arising from unscheduled contact. The judge credited her for having placed the children in voluntary care over a lengthy period.
Evidence about the father referred to mental health difficulties and addiction issues that had affected access. The judge said he was currently stable, had resumed holiday access with the children from summer 2016, and recognised he could not care for them. The Guardian Ad Litem supported the application. O understood the care proceedings and wished to move to a proposed foster placement. P wished to remain in the current placement, at least until 18.
The judge rejected making no order, a supervision order or a shorter care order, finding those options insufficient to protect the children. The court said P’s current placement should receive support and O’s planned move to a familiar foster placement should be supported. The father’s positive access was encouraged; the mother’s access should continue to be offered regularly under section 37. Sibling access should take place at least weekly and be included in both care plans and reviews.
The orders also require long-term matching of each placement within six months, with default re-entry if that does not happen. The case must return to court on notice to the Guardian Ad Litem if specified care-planning or staffing conditions arise, or if O’s placement changes other than as currently proposed. The Agency was directed to urgently consider the children’s possible property interests. An after-care review is to take place at 17. The judge discharged the Guardian Ad Litem subject to the directions made.