Local authority ordered to review conduct of child protection proceedings in light of failure to present case in “fair and balanced way”

A Family Court judge has ordered a London borough to conduct a review of a child protection case in light of its “many failings”, including a failure to present the case in a “fair and balanced way”, and a failure to look holistically at a young girl’s welfare needs.

In A (A Child): Contested Adoption and Local Authority Conduct, Re [2024] EWFC 192 (B), Her Honour Judge Lynn Roberts also ordered Lewisham Council to organise an independent inquiry into a family support centre, the Meliot Centre.

She concluded: “I am very troubled by what I have learned from the Children's Guardian and from Mr and Ms X. They tell me, and I accept, that reception staff and contact supervisors have been rude and hostile to them; they tell me, and I find, that contact notes are inaccurate and biased. I do not see how this court can rely on contact notes from the Meliot Centre in other cases whilst this remains unaddressed.”

The case concerned A, a 3-year-old girl. A is of African heritage on her mother (Ms R)’s side, and of African heritage on her father (Mr Q)’s side.

She was made the subject of a Care Order and a Placement Order in April 2022.

The judge said: “The two applications before me are for the Placement Order to be discharged, an application dated 8.9.2023 and brought by the LB Lewisham who hold the Placement Order, and an application for A to be adopted.”

She added: “The applicants for A’s adoption are Mr and Ms X , and theirs is a private application, in other words, A has not been placed by the LB Lewisham with Mr and Ms X pursuant to the Placement Order; rather, Mr and Ms X are the foster carers who have cared for A since she left hospital, and who now wish for her to become their child.”

The judge gave permission in November 2023 to Mr and Ms X to apply to adopt.

A is Ms R’s second child. Her first child lives with his father. Her third child B lives with Mr Q; her fourth child by another father is the subject of a Care Order and a Placement Order.

Her Honour Judge Lynn Roberts said: “There are various assessments of Ms R, not all of which reach the same conclusions but for the purposes of this hearing it can be summarised that A’s mother had a significant learning disability so that at times the Court of Protection have made decisions for her, and that she also has autism and traits of an emotionally unstable personality disorder.”

The local authority did not think that Ms R could raise a child, even with support, and therefore the local authority commenced care proceedings when A was born.

The judge noted that “much less was known” about Mr Q, and both parents were assessed during the proceedings. A is Mr Q’s first child.

In April 2022, the judge made a Care Order and a Placement Order for A, dispensing with the consent of each of Ms R and Mr Q because she found A’s welfare required this.

Soon after the conclusion of A’s proceedings, Ms R gave birth to B, also Mr Q’s child. The local authority commenced care proceeding in July 2022 and when B left hospital he was placed with Mr and Ms X where he was cared for along with A.

Later, Mr Q separated from Ms R. The judge said: “Mr Q was placed in a residential unit with B and he excelled there. When B’s case came to final hearing, it was agreed that there was no need for any public law order, and the court made a Child Arrangements Order to Mr Q.”

The local authority decided to commission an assessment outside proceedings as to whether Mr Q could parent both B and A and this was carried out by Ms T at the Meliot Centre and was “positive”, said the judge.

She added: “It was very much an assessment of the ability of Mr Q and his sister Ms P with whom he was living to care for the two children together, though the assessor comments that in her view Mr Q could parent both on his own.”

At the time of the present hearing, A had remained in the care of Mr and Ms X for nearly three years – with whom she had formed a strong and secure attachment.

Outlining the evidence of Ms X, the judge said: “Ms X describes A and her abilities, interests, relationships, including with two former foster children of Ms X whom A regards as her siblings. She gives me a very good picture of a delightful child, confident and happy in her home, nursery and out and about. She expresses worry at what she has read about how differently A presents when with her father even though A has been having three times a week contact with Mr Q since December 2023 (2 x a week from June 2023), including in Mr Q’s home.”

She added: “As Ms X points out, they were referred to as prospective adopters and treated as such by the Local Authority. I think this is significant evidence because although Mr and Ms X were never matched with A, in all other ways they were treated as A’s adopters and their care of A was necessarily informed by this, and I am sure that A ‘s sense was that they were her parents.”

Ms X described how difficult the relationship with Mr Q and his sister (Ms P) had been. “She considers that the Local Authority have not assisted by their approach,” said the judge.

HHJ Lynn Roberts noted that the Children’s Guardian was “confident” that if A stayed with Mr and Ms X , that Mr and Ms X would “promote her identity as a child with two families”.

The Children's Guardian considered the possible impact on A of a change in her circumstances.

She said that if A wasmoved to Mr Q’s care “she would experience a significant change and loss and need to be supported through this with emotionally attuned care that I do not consider Mr Q is able to provide, despite his wish to do so.”

In contrast, if A remained with Mr and Ms X there would be a loss of the legal link with her birth family but it would be an open adoption and A would maintain her knowledge of an active connection with her birth family.

The judge noted that Lewisham accepted that it had had to accept many criticisms in this case.

She said: “Their final position was that A should move to Mr Q’s care but that the transition could not start yet and they did not know when it could start.”

HHJ Lynn Roberts added: “If my decision was that A should be adopted, the LA were unable to tell me what their recommendation for Ms R’s contact should be, for example, how often it should be, where it should be, who would supervise it; they made no suggestions as to what contact should take place between A and her father if A is adopted; they were unable to tell me who would supervise the early stages of Mr Q’s contact with A or how Mr Q’s travel expenses would be paid, or where such contact would take place.”

The judge described the lack of planning and thinking ahead as “breath taking”.

Analysing the case, HHJ Lynn Roberts observed that it was “very significant” that Mr and Ms X were encouraged to think of A as their child up to October 2022, and after that were not informed properly of the local authority’s change of position until June 2023.

She said: “They did not treat A as a foster child and, with the local authority’s permission, raised her to think of them as her parents and her forever family. It would be hugely damaging in my view for A to now find that none of that is true.”

The judge continued: “On the other side of the equation there is Mr Q who loves her dearly but has not shown insight into A’s experiences to date and likely reaction to being taken from Mr and Ms X , and who is not as yet an attuned parent. I think the likely harm to A ‘s emotional health and development is likely to be long term.”

She observed that by being adopted by Mr and Ms X, A would not lose either part of her current world.

She said: “In my judgment, if A was placed with Mr Q, she is likely to lose her relationships with Mr and Ms X and their extended family and friends because I do not think that Mr Q’s commitment to maintaining the contact with Mr and Ms X is robust, nor that it would withstand practical difficulties, the Local Authority discouraging regular contact and the likely opposition of Ms P.”

The judge concluded that A’s welfare throughout her life was “most likely” to be achieved by making an adoption order to Mr and Ms X.

She said: “I dispense with the consent of each of Mr Q and of Ms R to the making of an adoption order because A’s welfare requires me to do so. I make an adoption order.”

The judge made a contact order to say that there will be monthly staying contact between Mr Q and A from Saturday mornings to Sunday evenings, i.e. 12 times a year.

She noted that that this would follow “a short period of supervised contact to ensure that the emotions following this hearing are under control, and to allow mediation to happen, and then a period of visiting contact so that Mr Q can get used to taking A out and about along with B before the staying contact begins”.

Finally, the judge ordered the local authority to organise an independent enquiry into the Meliot Centre.

She said: “I am very troubled by what I have learned from the Children's Guardian and from Mr and Ms X. They tell me, and I accept, that reception staff and contact supervisors have been rude and hostile to them; they tell me, and I find, that contact notes are inaccurate and biased. I do not see how this court can rely on contact notes from the Meliot Centre in other cases whilst this remains unaddressed.”

HHJ Lynn Roberts added: “I also require LB Lewisham to review their conduct of this case in the light of the many failings I have set out in this judgment to include their failure to look holistically at any point at A’s welfare needs, their failure to present the case in a fair and balanced way, and the treatment of the evidence of the IRO [independent reviewing officer].”

Responding to the judgment, Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children and Young People at Lewisham Council, said: “We are committed to helping, protecting and caring for children and we seek to keep families together, wherever it is safe to do so. This was a difficult decision in unusual circumstances and we recognise every child and family circumstance is different.

“We accept the judgment and will be conducting an independent examination of the case for the learning, to improve future practice. The decisions made were not a result of any one individual practitioner, they are owned by the local authority for which the senior leaders of Children’s Services take responsibility.”

Lottie Winson