The District Court refused the Child and Family Agency’s application for an interim care order for Z, a child of about 10, finding that Z was adequately cared for by an adult sibling, X. The decision concerned only the interim application; the Agency withdrew its separate application for a full care order immediately after the ruling.
The application under section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991 was issued in January 2017 and heard over four days in March. Z had been living with X since mid-January under a private family arrangement. The parents accepted there was reasonable cause to believe that statutory child-protection circumstances had existed, but disputed that Z needed to be placed in the Agency’s care while the full care application was pending.
The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that Z had been neglected while in the parents’ care and that Z’s health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if returned to them. The parents had argued that Z should remain with X. The Agency sought an interim order and said Z would then be moved to general foster care. The guardian ad litem considered an order necessary but favoured placement with a sibling; she also told the court that, in her view, Z’s best interests would be better served by no interim order than by removal from the family.
The judgment describes repeated changes in Z’s carers, homes and schools, and says the private arrangement could be ended by the parents at any time. It also records concerns about X’s suitability raised in preliminary screening, including criminal convictions and child-welfare concerns. The judge nevertheless found no identified risk arising from X’s care or ability to care for Z that was significant enough to justify removing Z from X pending the section 18 application. The judge considered the risks identified did not outweigh the potential harm of a placement outside the family.
The court concluded that it was not necessary for Z’s protection to be placed or maintained in the Agency’s care pending determination of the full care application, and declined the interim care order. The judge stressed that this did not determine whether Z needed care and protection under section 18, or make long-term arrangements. The ruling also did not resolve submissions on the Agency’s statutory duties and the court’s jurisdiction, which the judge said it was unnecessary to consider in light of the decision.
The judge said the court could not issue directions while Z was not in care, but recommended continued appropriate Agency support and prompt assessments of C and X if pursued. The guardian ad litem’s appointment was to continue until the section 18 hearing. Immediately after the decision, the Agency withdrew that application.