The District Court refused four applications by two former foster carers concerning a child who had lived with them for about 17 months under a short-term fostering arrangement. The child had moved to a long-term approved relative foster placement before the applications were decided. The judgment does not identify the child, parents or foster carers.
The carers sought to vary or discharge the existing care order, obtain a second medical opinion on the child’s diagnoses, secure access to the child, and obtain directions under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991, including the child’s return to their care. They had not been added as respondents to the proceedings, but their standing to make the applications was not challenged.
The court had evidence from the Agency and the child’s Guardian Ad Litem, reports from a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist and the carers’ GP, and testimony from five witnesses. The carers disagreed with the psychiatrist’s assessment, which identified neurodevelopmental and social communication disorders and reactive attachment disorder, and requested a second opinion. The judge was not persuaded that reviewing the diagnosis was in the child’s interests or proper in the circumstances.
The child’s move followed the Agency’s decision that the carers’ home was not suitable as a long-term placement. The court accepted that the transition was very difficult for the carers and that they had co-operated with parts of the transition plan. It also accepted expert evidence that a drawn-out transition was not in the child’s interests once the move had been decided. The judge found no basis to return the child to the former carers, concluding that doing so would not serve the child’s best interests.
The judge refused to vary or discharge the care order, which had been made in April 2014 for three years, and refused the request for a second opinion. The judge also declined to order access at that stage, finding it premature. The Agency was expected to engage with the carers on a child-centred arrangement with appropriate safeguards. The carers were given liberty to apply again if access could not be agreed.
The court refused the other directions sought under section 47. It made no order for costs against the Child and Family Agency.