Family court judge criticises local authority for “casual and cavalier approach” to risk assessment and care planning for a vulnerable 13 year-old girl
The judgment summarised below concerns a 13 year-old girl referred to by the family court as X. In late January 2024, X was made the subject of an interim care order. The interim care plan approved by the family court stipulated that X would be removed from her parents’ care and placed with foster carer/s, pending an assessment of her parents’ ability to care for and protect her. However, due to subsequent actions of the local authority, X’s situation was referred to the family court again.
Background
Initial concerns about X’s safety and welfare and becoming looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989
In early December 2023, X was referred to children’s social care after she said she had been sexually abused within her family home. X said she had been abused by several males within her family over a period of years, including regular assaults by her paternal grandfather since she was nine years old, frequent sexual touching and being raped 15 times by her brother between the ages of 8 and 10 years old, and an attempted rape by her brother-in-law.
The local authority was aware of previous concerns about possible sexual abuse within the family home. In addition to a disclosure made by X to one of her teachers about being touched inappropriately by her brother, there were also previous allegations recorded by the police concerning X’s sister being sexually abused by the paternal grandfather. Social work records showed that, according to X’s sisters, “it was known within the family that paternal grandfather had sexually assaulted other children of the family”.
Additionally, X said she had been physically abused at home by her parents and siblings.
In mid-December 2023, with the consent of her parents, X was voluntarily accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and went to live in foster care.
X becoming the subject of an interim care order
In late January 2024, the local authority applied to the family court for an interim care order. Evidence submitted to the court in support of this application identified a series of risks and concerns, including X’s parents being unable to protect her, X being viewed by the family as rebellious and badly behaved, X’s parents being dismissive of her accounts of sexual abuse and prioritising protecting their reputation, and X’s family repeatedly attributing X’s statements concerning abuse to her menta health difficulties. The local authority’s application was supported by the Cafcass children’s guardian whose report noted that X’s independent reviewing officer (IRO) was also concerned about X’s mother’s unwillingness to acknowledge the allegations.
An interim care order was granted by the family court and, in line with the interim care plan prepared by the local authority, X was to live in foster care while an assessment was undertaken to determine if it would be safe for her to return home.
X did not settle in foster care and she had to leave within two weeks. Being unable to find an alternative foster placement, the local authority placed X in a Travelodge in the care of one of her sisters, but this arrangement also came to an end quickly due to X’s sister’s work commitments. In response, without consulting the Cafcass guardian or informing X’s IRO, the local authority decided that X’s mother should care for her at the Travelodge. Subsequently, X and her mother were moved to an Airbnb arranged by the council.
Concerns about local authority’s arrangements for X’s care and subsequent family court hearings
At a planned hearing in early March, the family court became aware of and was “deeply concerned” about the change in X’s care arrangements and ordered another hearing to take place within days.
Ahead of this hearing (the findings of which are summarised lower down), the local authority failed to produce any evidence of placement approval as required by The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 or a revised interim care plan or safety plan. Due to “the absence of any clear explanation of the local authority’s rationale for placing X in the care of her mother notwithstanding the circumstances”, the family court directed that senior council officers – the Head of Service for Family Safeguarding and the Operations Director for Children’s Services – should attend the hearing.
During the hearing, the court questioned the contradictions between the local authority’s arrangements for X’s care and the interim care plan. The Head of Service stated that X’s placement with her mother had been approved, as required by The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, on the basis that the local authority now considered the mother as a protective factor and that a “positive risk assessment” had been carried out. X not wanting to be away from her family and appearing more settled were cited as further reasons for the change in care arrangements. The Head of Service confirmed to the court that the local authority was now “working towards the safe rehabilitation of X to the care of her family”.
The legal framework
Interim care orders – Children Act 1989
A family court can make a child the subject of an interim care order if care proceedings are adjourned or if the court requires more information about the child’s circumstances to decide if a care order is required to safeguard the child’s welfare - section 38. Before making the order, the court must apply the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3).
An interim care order can only be made if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the criteria set out in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 are met, i.e.:
(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.
The local authority named in the interim order acquires parental responsibility for the child (which is shared with the child’s parents/others who have parental responsibility) for the duration of the order and can exercise it to the exclusion of others with parental responsibility but only in limited circumstances (section 33(3)-(4)).
Medical or psychiatric examination or assessment of the child and interim care orders:
When making an interim care order, the family court can instruct that the child undergoes medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment if it considers this necessary as part of its decision-making. When making such a direction, the court must have regard to the impact such an examination or assessment is likely to have on the child (among other considerations) (section 38(7B)).
However, the child has the right to refuse this if they are of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision (section 38(6)).
Assessing the suitability of a parent to care for a child - The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010
Regulation 17 states:
Before deciding to place the child (C) with the parent (P), the responsible authority must—
(a) assess the suitability of P to care for C, including the suitability of—
(i) the proposed accommodation, and
(ii) all other persons aged 18 and over who are members of the household in which it is proposed that C will live,
(b) take into account all the matters set out in Schedule 3* in making their assessment,
(c) consider whether, in all the circumstances and taking into account the services to be provided by the responsible authority, the placement will safeguard and promote C's welfare and meet C's needs set out in the care plan, and
(d) review C's case in accordance with Part 6.
*Schedule 3 sets out a range of considerations, including:
(a) P's capacity to care for the child, including meeting their physical, medical and emotional needs (including those associated with the child’s religion, race, culture and disability), protecting them from harm or danger, ensuring the home environment is safe, promoting their learning and intellectual development, and providing stability to enable the child to develop and maintain secure attachments;
(b) P's state of physical, emotional and mental health;
(c) P's family relationships and the composition of the household, including their age and relationship with P and with each other, other adults who are not members of the household but are likely to have regular contact with C, and any current or previous domestic violence;
(d) P's family history;
(e) any criminal offences;
(f) P's past and present employment and income, and
(g) the nature of the neighbourhood where P lives and available community resources to support C and P.
The family court’s analysis and conclusions
Arrangements for X’s care were described by the family court as “wholly inconsistent”.
What the local authority senior officers referred to as “a robust risk assessment” which preceded the placement of the girl in her mother’s care, was found by the court to be a “hurried and inadequate narrative” which “deals only in the most cursory manner with the allegations of sexual abuse”. In particular, the court found the narrative account of X’s circumstances and related decision-making “superficial and incomplete” in that it failed to deal with the serious nature and extent of X’s allegations and that, based on evidence presented by the local authority, an interim care order had been made due to risk of significant harm to X identified by the local authority. The risk assessment relied on by the senior officers did not mention that both the allocated social worker and the children’s guardian believed X’s parents were not able to protect her.
Relying on existing domestic case law, the court stated that a local authority cannot decline to accept the court’s evaluation of risk, no matter how much it may disagree with it, nor can it disregard the court’s assessment of a child’s welfare (see paragraph 46).
“In this case, having heard evidence from the [local authority senior officers], I am satisfied that in making a decision, prior to the determination of the allegations made by X … and prior to having undertaken any social work assessment of the parents, to place X in care of her mother the local authority has simply disregarded the court’s assessments of risk and welfare in these proceedings. The evidence of [the senior officers] simply ignored these matters notwithstanding that the local authority itself instigated these proceedings, led evidence in the proceedings which indicated that the mother was not able to protect X from the risk of physical and sexual abuse and requested that the court approve an interim care plan of removal”. (Paragraph 47; emphasis added)
“Robust risk assessment in the context of alleged sexual abuse is not derived from vague assertions … It is derived from the careful, detailed, evidence based social work practice …”. (Paragraph 50; emphasis added)
The court concluded that no evidence was produced by the local authority to confirm, as required by The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, that the local authority assessed the suitability of X’s mother to care for her, or the suitability of the accommodation for the girl.
Despite the local authority departing markedly from the arrangements for X’s care approved by the family court at the time when the interim care order was made (i.e., that X would be placed in foster care), there was no amended interim care plan setting out how placing X with her mother in Airbnb accommodation would safeguard and promote her welfare and meet her needs (as required by law).
The court also noted that the local authority “did not appear to have considered the question of whether the arrangements for the mother to care for X impacted on the ongoing police investigation”.
The court concluded:
“Alleged sexual abuse is a complex and grave safeguarding issue that demands a careful and precise forensic approach to evidence based risk assessment. The casual and cavalier approach adopted by the local authority to risk assessment and decision making for X in this case is the antithesis of the correct approach and one which manifestly fails to safeguard X. [In] January 2024, this court assessed X to be at risk of sexual and physical abuse and assessed the mother and the father as being unable to protect X from that risk. … The local authority has to date placed nothing before the court that justifies those conclusions being revisited”. (Paragraph 55)
The care and welfare of X was scheduled for consideration by the family court at another (immediate) hearing, with the court restating its expectation of the local authority adhering to the risk and welfare assessments of the court to date.
You can read the full judgment here: Luton Borough Council v R & Ors [2024] EWFC 52 (13 March 2024)
