Robert Sharp summarises a judgment for Family Law Week about a child's application to discharge a care order granted 10 months earlier. The court dismissed the application and maintained the order. However in doing so the judge made pointed comments about the local authority’s failures to implement the agreed care plan.
The judge reviewed the legal authorities about the court’s oversight of care placements, once a final order has been made.
The judgment is salutary reading for those working in social care and those representing looked after children.
Background to the proceedings in Re E (A Child – Application to Discharge Care Order – Failures of Local Authority)
The proceedings concerned a child referred pseudonymously as ‘Emi’. Since 2023, Emi had been in foster care: first on an interim order. Then a final order was made in May 2024.
Emi had grown up in a household where domestic and sexual abuse perpetrated by Emi’s father, from whom their mother was unwilling or unable to fully disassociate.
The final order to place Emi in foster care was made on the basis that they would be at risk of harm if they returned to live at home.
At the judge’s invitation, the local authority amended its care plan to provide therapeutic support for Emi, including a promise that ‘in house’ or privately funded therapy would be available to mitigate the CAMHS waiting lists. The judge then made a final order placing Emi in foster care.
Regrettably, following the order, most of the care plan was not implemented.
Reviewing the authorities, HHJ Earley noted that it was not the court’s role to intervene in a child’s care, once a final order had been made.
However, this judgment reminds practitioners and legal counsel within local authorities that failure to perform simple, low-cost reviews can lead to catastrophic outcomes if crucial interventions are not made in a timely fashion. The litigation that such failings produce is costly and avoidable. Policies and processes should include ‘fail safes’ in this regard.
Also this judgment provides practical guidance to practitioners acting for those who the subject of a care order. While Re S and Re W precludes applications for specific performance of individual elements in a care plan, this case shows that the blunt instrument of a section 39 application is still available to those dissatisfied with how the care plan is being implemented.
View the full summary of the judgment on Family Law Week