Judge was wrong to believe ‘chaotic parents’ of vulnerable baby

9 Apr 2020

A judge made a mistake when he refused a placement order for the seven-month-old daughter of a “chaotic parents”.

 

That was the decision of the Court of Appeal in a case involving a couple whose lives were characterised by drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and mental illness.

 

The court heard that the couple had failed to engage with public services, and in the mother's case, there was a history of mental illness and suicide attempts. Their two older children were being cared for by their paternal grandmother under a special guardianship order.

 

The local authority believed their baby daughter was at risk and applied for a placement order so she could be adopted.

 

The judge agreed that the baby was at risk of harm if she were with the parents and that a care order was required, but he rejected the local authority's application for a placement order.

 

He found that there was some recent improvement in the parents' behaviour, that they wanted to change and there were reasonable grounds to think that they would, and that there was still time for them to rehabilitate with the aim of resuming caring for their daughter.

 

He ordered an interim care plan by which the baby would stay in foster care for 12-15 months to give time for the parents to demonstrate that they had changed.

 

The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It held that the judge’s decision was unduly optimistic about the chances of the couple turning their lives around.

 

Contrary to the father's evidence that he had been taking only over-the-counter drugs, tests showed that he had been using cannabis, cocaine, heroin and codeine in the months leading up to the hearing.

 

The mother's evidence about her drug use was also contradicted by the test evidence.

 

The judge had also failed to grapple with the domestic violence issue. The risks to children of exposure to domestic violence were fully recognised by the courts. Children could be harmed by it directly and indirectly even if they were too young to be conscious of it.

 

The local authority’s application for a placement order was granted.

 

If you would like more information or advice about the issues raised in this article, or any aspect of family law please contact our expert legal team on 0208 004 0065, by email at hello@southgate.co.uk or using the form below.

 

Case Citations: RE H (A CHILD) (2019) CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Lindblom LJ, Baker LJ)

 

The contents of this article is general information only. The information in this article is not legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this article was published.  Readers should not act on the basis of the information included and should obtain independent expert advice from qualified solicitors such as those within our firm.

 

Share on Facebook
Tweet
Please reload

What We Offer You

Expert

Solicitors

Price

Promise

Skype

Meetings

24/7

Enquiry Line

Out of Hours

Appointments

Quick

Responses

No Hidden

Fees

Modern

Service

Expedited

Services

Law Society

Accreditation

Do you need to discuss your family law matter with a solicitor?
Call us now or send an enquiry below to discuss your options!

Third Floor, Crown House, 47 Chase Side, London, N14 5BP

Tel: 0208 004 0065 - Email: hello@southgate.co.uk

southgate solicitors is a trading name of Southgate Solicitors Limited Company No: 10575376 - Registered Office at above address

We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No: 636415

All prices displayed are inclusive of VAT.

VAT No: 263804305

Privacy Terms of Use - Complaints Process

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon