careersclosedown-chevrondownloaddxfacebookfaxhistoryinstagramlinkedinmagnifymenuphoneright-arrowstartestimonialstwitter
Message us via WhatsApp

Procedural Safeguards in Care Proceedings: lessons from a recent case

Time running out deadlines looming like an hourglass draining sand. Concept Time Management, Stress Relief, Productivity, Goal Setting, Focus

A recent case from 2024 tells us that judges are becoming increasingly intolerant of procedural failings that cause undue delay. With closer attention being paid to how long cases take it is more important than ever that parents have good advice to ensure their case is in good order from the start. There will be no second chances.

Background

Following the local authority’s concerns regarding the mother’s behaviour; and allegations of domestic abuse against the father, the local authority applied for an interim care order in respect of a girl, E.

Procedural Problems

The significant issue of London Borough of Enfield v E [2024] EWFC 183 was that it was heard over 17 hearings, and therefore didn’t conclude within the 26-week time limit that is set out in the Children Act. The judge echoed the words of the former President of the Family Division in saying that the time-limit “does not describe some mere aspiration, it defines…a mandatory limit”, intended to protect the welfare of the children involved in proceedings. It is hoped that parents will be reassured by this loud-and-clear reminder of the importance of protecting subject-children by ensuring that care proceedings are concluded are soon as possible. In fact, the Court are compelled to be mindful of this time limit by considering whether an extension is necessary at each stage of proceedings. Any application to extend this time-limit must take into account the impact this would have on the welfare of the child involved.

The court observed that the mother had been assessed six times by five difference authorities – further exacerbating delays and costs. Again, the Judge had something to say about this and pointed to a section within the Children and Families Act that states that expert assessments may only be ordered where they are “necessary” to assist the Court.

The multiple assessments all reached the conclusion that the mother suffered from a learning disability. This meant that following the relevant safeguards became even more important, especially considering that cases involving parties with learning difficulties are more likely to go beyond the time-limit. The judge affirmed that: “for the reasons set out in Re H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm), care must be taken to ensure that a parent with learning difficulties is given a fair chance to demonstrate that they have the capacity to care for their child”.

The Judge in this case highlighted further procedural failings such as:

  • Hearings being listed without a fixed date
  • Requiring multiple hearings to resolve issues
  • Having multiple judge presiding over the case
  • No continuity of counsel

The message is clear – these failings can be avoided if the rules are followed

How We Can Help

Morecrofts have many dedicated and accredited solicitors with a wealth of experience in care matters. If you require advice in matters relating to care orders or family matters involving the local authority, please contact us.