The District Court granted the Child and Family Agency’s application to allow two children in its care to travel abroad on holiday with their foster carers, despite both parents withholding consent. The court also directed that the children be told the decision in an age-appropriate way and criticised the handling of the proposed trip as a systematic failure or failure of professional standards.
The application was made under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991. The children, identified only as A and B, were living in CFA care under interim care orders. The proposed holiday was to country X from late May to early June 2015. The court heard the contested application in late May and reserved its decision until noon the following day.
The judge found that the foster carers had booked the trip in March 2015 for themselves, A and B, and other children. The CFA was told on 5 May, and the parents on 10 May. The parents immediately refused consent and repeated that refusal when contacted again. The children had already been told about the holiday in detail, and one asked the parents to consent during an access visit.
The CFA social worker and the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) said the trip would serve the children’s welfare and that excluding them could make them feel they did not belong with the foster family. The parents submitted that the difference in means and lifestyle between them and the foster carers could affect the children’s views about returning to parental care. They also alleged that the foster carers were influencing B against contact. The judge accepted that the parents’ concerns and refusal were genuine and not motivated by spite, but found no admissible evidence supporting the alleged active influence. The professional witnesses said the carers were not seeking to undermine contact.
The court said the children’s welfare had already been adversely affected by their involvement in the dispute, including being told of the trip before consent or a court order was secured. The judge said parents’ consent should be sought before children are told about a proposed holiday, and any dispute resolved first. The court did not know whether the private fostering agency had a protocol; it said one was urgently required if none existed.
In granting the requested direction, the judge said stopping the trip was unlikely to change B’s attitude to access and could lead B to blame the parents. The court directed that the children be told the parents’ refusal was genuinely motivated, that the holiday issue had been handled improperly and late, and that the ruling was not a victory or defeat for anyone. The CFA solicitor had apologised to the parents, which the judge regarded as appropriate. The underlying application for a full care order had not yet received a full hearing; this decision concerned permission for the holiday.