E (A Child - Application to Discharge Care Order - Failures of the Local Authority), Re

In February 2025 the President of the Family Division and the Family Justice Young People’s Board issued guidance for judges writing to children in family cases. Within his foreword, Sir Andrew MacFarlane said a child is entitled to be given an accurate and informative account of what was decided, and why, from the judge who made the decision. This will be important for the young person in understanding that their wishes and feelings have been taken into account by the court, and in supporting them to accept or make sense of the decision as they move forward with their life thereafter.

It has been my practice, for many years, to write to and/or meet the young people involved in cases before me. I met the young person at the centre of this judgment before the final hearing in March 2024 and wrote to them afterwards to explain the decisions I had made. A culture of judges communicating with all children involved in family proceedings is rightly encouraged by the President. However, this makes it incumbent on local authorities to ensure they faithfully follow the child’s care plan as approved by the court, or engage with the child and their family to explain why the plan has changed.

If the purpose of judges writing to children is to help them feel important and valued and accurately understand the decisions that have been made, these intentions are wholly undermined if what a child is told by the Judge will happen (either in a letter or a meeting), does not materialise. A child who is told by the Judge that reviews and reconsideration will take place at certain times, will understandably feel ignored, confused and let down when this does not happen. A child who is encouraged by the Judge to engage in support and interventions designed and planned to support their safety and wellbeing, will likely question whether such engagement is worthwhile, if meaningful support does not materialise as and when provided for in their care plan.

Children growing up in Care often have low self-esteem and self-worth. They have often experienced trauma, loss and rejection. For a child, or young person, to be given legitimate expectations from a judge, which are seemingly then ignored by their social work team, will only increase that child’s feelings of isolation and worthlessness. From the point of view of a young person, if what a judge says cannot be trusted, why should they trust other professionals, such as their social worker, independent reviewing officer, teachers etc.

The young person involved in these proceedings will shortly be 17 years old. In the published version of this judgment they will be called Emi, which means ‘smile’. Since January 2023 Emi has been in foster care; initially under an Interim Care Order and since May 2024 under a final Care Order. Emi is represented in these proceedings by their solicitor Ms Raitt.

This judgment is the third judgment I have given in relation to Emi and their family. The first was a fact-finding judgment in September 2023 and latterly, in March 2024, a final judgment dealing with the final orders and care plans for Emi and their siblings. This judgment concerns Emi’s application to discharge their Care Order and return to the care of their mother. That application was issued in December 2024.

Emi’s mother represents herself in these proceedings she was unable to secure legal aid. She underwent a cognitive assessment within the first set of proceedings which advised that she does not have a learning disability, however she does have difficulty understanding and processing verbal information. The mother was given an opportunity to set out her position in writing and was also able to speak to me directly in court.

Emi’s father has not engaged with these proceedings. He did engage with the fact-finding hearing and was represented and gave evidence, but thereafter disengaged. He remains under police investigation for very serious offences relating to Emi’s siblings.

The local authority who hold a Care Order for Emi are West Sussex County Council represented by Mr Butler of counsel. I have considered whether it is appropriate to name the individual workers at the local authority who have been responsible for the failings set out in this judgment. There has been a succession of allocated social workers for Emi and their siblings and a change in team manager and service manager. The conference reviewing officer (CRO) has remained the same throughout. Ultimately, I have decided not to name individuals, as the failings are the collective responsibility of the local authority, rather than one or two individuals. In making the observations I do in this judgment, I also accept that none of the social work professionals acted in bad faith or intended the impact that their failures had on Emi and their wellbeing.

Emi’s Guardian is Theresa Seale who represents herself, as legal funding was not available through Cafcass. Ms Seale was the Guardian for Emi and their siblings throughout the care proceedings and has a good understanding of the issues in this case and Emi’s wishes and feelings.

By the date of the final hearing on 27 May 2025 Emi had transitioned home to the care of their mother in accordance with their strongly held wishes. This move was supported by the local authority, Emi’s mother and Ms Seale. Emi’s siblings remain either in foster care or in the care of their father (a different father to Emi).

The local authority oppose Emi’s application to discharge their Care Order. They support Emi remaining with their mother as an approved placement with a parent, under the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations 2010. Whilst Emi made the application to discharge the Care Order, by the time of the final hearing their position had shifted and they were no longer actively seeking discharge and confirmed, through Ms Raitt, that they understood the benefits of remaining subject to a Care Order and why the court may think this was in their best interests. Similarly, Emi’s mother’s final position was that they would accept the court’s decision as to whether the Care Order should be discharged. Ms Seale advocated that the Care Order should be discharged and replaced with a Supervision Order, raising that a Care Order was no longer necessary or proportionate. She acknowledged the benefits to Emi of remaining a Child in Care, however she did not consider this was sufficient reason to retain the Care Order.

I told the parties, having heard their submissions, that my decision was that the Care Order should not be discharged. This judgment explains the reasons I reached that decision. However, the judgment also sets out the significant concerns I have as to the conduct of the local authority, their failure to review or carry out important points in Emi’s care plan and address matters in a timely and responsive way and the impact this had on Emi.

Emi is very vulnerable, as a result of their past experiences and the trauma they suffered growing up. Their earliest childhood was disrupted as their mother suffered with mental health difficulties and Emi spent a period of time being cared for by their grandmother.

Once they returned to the care of their mother, Emi grew up in a household where there was domestic abuse and an atmosphere of fear and control. Emi was exposed to their father being verbally and physically abusive to their mother and both parents being emotionally abusive to their younger siblings. Emi was living in a home where their father was a sexual predator and sexually and physically abused his children.

Prior to the fact-finding hearing Emi’s mother accepted that she had been emotionally and physically abusive to Emi’s younger siblings and had failed to protect them from their father’s abusive behaviour. She also accepted that despite a previous separation, when the children were younger and their father was convicted of violence and subjected to a Restraining Order, she resumed their relationship and allowed him to move back into the family home once that order expired.

Within my fact-finding judgment I set out the opportunities that had been missed by the local authority to safeguard the children at various stages and delays between one of the children making serious allegations of abuse and action being taken.

In my March 2024 judgment, I set out that Emi would be at risk of harm if they returned home to the care of their mother at that point. As I set out in that judgment, the mother remained vulnerable to manipulation and coercion from the father and, as such, would struggle to protect Emi from further harm, were Emi to be in her care.

I was satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate to make a Care Order to secure Emi’s placement in foster care. However, I was clear that did not mean that such an order would remain justified until Emi reached 18 years old. I was conscious that Emi was taking their GCSEs in Spring 2024 and as they have ambitions to progress to university, their progress in education was, and remains, vital to their future life choices.

Within that judgment I set out my concerns that the local authority had not progressed specialist work for Emi or their mother that had been flagged up as necessary throughout the proceedings. In my judgment I said: It is unfortunate, and a failing on the part of the local authority, that this specialist support has not been identified and commenced before this final hearing. This was a reference to my September 2023 judgment in which I made clear that all the children required specialist professional intervention to help them recover from the abuse they had sustained.

Within the order following the fact-finding hearing in September 2023 it was recorded that the mother had requested work and support in relation to understanding the impact of domestic and sexual abuse and prevention work so that she may protect herself and the children in the future. It was also recorded that the local authority were investigating referrals to appropriate resources for this specialist work.

The Guardian’s final analysis, prepared in February 2024, highlighted that the children’s care plans made no mention of the essential therapeutic work for the children, or the specialist protective work for their mother. During the final hearing in March 2024 the local authority filed an updating statement in response to this deficit which detailed a proposed ‘support package’ and stated: The Local Authority acknowledges the Guardian's recommendation for appropriate specialist interventions to support the children and provide their mother with an understanding of child abuse and grooming to help improve her protective capacity. The Local Authority is committed to provide the support package.

Prior to making a final order for Emi I invited the local authority to amend their final care plan to include the following:

The local authority filed an amended and updated final care plan for Emi in March 2024 which included the following provisions:
- A review to take place in summer 2024 to look at the possibility of reunification.

Following consideration of the updated care plan I made the final Care Order for Emi, content that the local authority were aware of the specific needs of Emi and their family and had a plan to be responsive and supportive. I wrote to Emi explaining why I could not accede to their wish to return home, and set out the next steps that had been confirmed by the local authority. I encouraged them to be patient, work hard for their GCSEs and engage in the work that the local authority had agreed was necessary, including therapeutic support and keep safe work.

Ms Seale also wrote to Emi’s CRO to update them in relation to the amendments to the final care plan for Emi and the steps that the social work team had agreed to undertake.

Thereafter, Emi did what had been asked of them. They passed all their GCSEs and achieved a place at college. They remained in foster care and spent time with their mother and siblings when permitted and agreed by the local authority. Emi’s feelings about remaining in foster care during this period are set out in their January 2025 statement: I have never cried more times than I have in the past year because I can't do this anymore and I have expressed this many times. I am completely struggling and it is making me feel ill in myself. I can't carry on like this.

A handover meeting took place between the court proceedings social work team and the Children We Care for Team on 17th May 2024. A statement filed from the Service Manager states that at this meeting it was acknowledged that with some protective work, alongside clarity that the mother is no longer the victim of grooming, the young person may be able to return home. The statement goes on to state the local authority accepts that there was an unacceptable delay in some of the specific intervention work taking place.

In July 2024 a meeting took place within the Permanence Team. The Service Manager statement highlights that the meeting did not consider the lack of progress with the planned and agreed interventions since the Care Order was made.

A Child we Care for Review (CWCF) took place on 8 August 2024. Emi met with their CRO in advance of this meeting. I have seen the minutes of this meeting and a statement from the CRO. The minutes of the meeting refer to Emi being told they cannot return home until they are 17 – 17.5 years old as there needs to be time for the intervention to take place and then for re-assessment of your mum before a decision is made as to wether [sic] the LA agree a rehabilitation home plan. The minutes also state this intervention has not started yet, nor a plan produced of what this looks like. However, Emi’s final Care Plan set out a plan for what should have happened and when and there is no acknowledgement of this within the CWCF review. The statement from the Service Manager states: there was a review in August 2024 which set an outcome that the intervention be completed by the subsequent review in February 2025 - unfortunately only one point from this care plan was progressed for which we can only apologise.

In September 2024 there was a further Permanence Panel meeting. The Service Manager’s statement records that the panel confirmed that Emi would remain in foster care, in their current placement, as a permanent plan. This was based on concern that Emi’s mother had recently been seen with their father and was unable to make changes and prioritise Emi’s needs. By this time, no work had started with either Emi or their mother.

In October 2024 Emi commenced fortnightly counselling sessions with a counsellor; this seems to be the one point referred to in the Service Manager’s statement. Emi’s care plan envisaged assessment and support from a psychologist, rather than a counsellor, however it seems this course was taken following an inability by the local authority to source a psychologist who assist Emi. I have seen a statement from the Chair of the TAP (Therapeutic Access Panel) which updated the court that a request was made in May 2024 for a psychological assessment of Emi, to look at their therapeutic needs. The request was sent to providers in June and chased in July. There was no capacity within any of the approved providers to undertake the assessment of Emi. The TAP Chair therefore agreed to fund 12 sessions of counselling via the TAP discretionary budget, as an alternative to the planned psychological assessment and intervention.

The statement from the TAP chair states: In response to the consideration of a psychological assessment, whilst this would have been the best opportunity to understand their psychological needs, the lack of providers to deliver this would have caused substantial delay in them receiving the intervention they were requesting. Whilst this may have provided further insight into their therapeutic requirements, the Local Authority holds a significant understanding regarding their lived experience, early childhood history and relationships with their family which would indicate that they would benefit from psychological input. It is therefore clear, that therapy would support the processing of their experiences, reduce psychological distress and promote their emotional wellbeing.

On 23 December 2024 Emi issued their application to discharge their Care Order. I considered the application upon issue and gave initial case management directions on 16 January 2025, including listing for an initial hearing on 31 January 2025.

It was not until February 2025, once the matter was back in proceedings, that agreement was given from the Head of Service to source an independent social worker (ISW) to undertake specialist intervention work with Emi and their mother. This was work that was supposed to commence in April 2024. This specialist work commenced on 21 February 2025 and concluded at the end of March.

The local authority have also recently engaged a Solutions Worker to undertake weekly parenting work with Emi and their mother to build on the work of the ISW around boundaries and vulnerabilities.

In 2002, in the case of Re S and Re W (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) [2002] UKHL 10, the House of Lords determined that once a Care Order had been made, the responsibility for the child’s care thereafter lay with the local authority, not with the court, and the courts were not empowered to intervene. The introduction by the family courts of a system which gave the court a supervisory role following the making of a Care Order, by starring objectives that needed to be met, went beyond the bounds of the court’s judicial jurisdiction because it involved a substantial departure from one of the cardinal principles of the Children Act. The Lordships, however, expressed concern that local authorities were failing to meet the court’s expectations as to how children’s welfare should be prioritised and promoted, and urged Parliament to take steps to address the lack of oversight of a child’s care plan and progress in care, once proceedings concluded.

In response to this concern, s.118 of the Adoption and Children 2002 introduced the role of Independent Reviewing Officers (IRO), which came into force in September 2004. The Adoption and Children Act also introduced the statutory need for a local authority to file a Care Plan for the court to consider before making a Care Order for a child [s.31A Children Act 1989]. Within West Sussex the role of IRO and conference chair was later combined to encompass the role of Conference Reviewing Officer (CRO).

The roles and functions of the IRO/CRO are defined by the Family Rights Group as follows:

Chairing looked after child review meetings.

Monitoring the care the child is receiving. This includes making sure the child’s care plan meets the child’s current needs and making sure decisions following the child’s reviews are put into action.

Using their powers to call for an earlier review for the child if needed. This might happen if the child’s social worker informs the independent reviewing officer of a plan to make a change to the care plan, or if there is going to be a major change to contact arrangements.

Making sure the child is informed of their right to make an application to court and to make a complaint.

Trying to resolve any disputes about the child’s care plan with Children’s Services or, in the absence of agreement, referring the matter to Cafcass.

In the matter of W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot [2013] EWCA Civ 1227, the Court of Appeal emphasised the collaborative nature of care planning when proceedings are before the Family Court and the need for the local authority to respond to the Judge’s assessment of the child’s needs. As per Ryder LJ: The local authority is required to provide the evidence to enable the judge to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That includes a description of the services that are available and practicable for each placement option and each order being considered by the court. It may be convenient for that to be put into the form of the s.31A care plan in the alternative so that the court may expressly undertake its statutory function to consider the same or in evidence filed in support. There should be no question of an authority declining to file its evidence or proposed plans in response to the court’s evaluations. None of this strays into the impermissible territory of seeking to bind the local authority’s care planning and review processes once a full order is made. If a local authority make it clear that they will not implement a care plan option about which evidence has been given and which the judge prefers on welfare and proportionality grounds, then in a rare case they can be subjected to challenge in the High Court within the proceedings. If and in so far as the local authority are of the opinion that they need to change a care plan option approved by the court once the proceedings are complete, they are entitled to do so and must do so in accordance with the processes laid out in the regulations. If they do so without good reason they will risk an appropriate challenge including on behalf of the child after a referral from an IRO to Cafcass.

In Re TT (Children: Discharge of Care Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 742 the Court of Appeal confirmed that when considering whether to discharge a Care Order, in accordance with s.39 Children Act 1989, the court may dismiss the application, discharge the order or replace it with a Supervision Order, in which case there is no requirement for the s. 31(2) threshold to be crossed. As the decision concerns a question of upbringing, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. As the court is considering whether to vary or discharge an order under Part IV, the court shall have particular regard to the factors in the welfare checklist. As the court is considering whether to make an order under the Children Act, it shall not make the order unless to do so would be better for the child than making no order at all. The Article 6 and Article 8 rights of the child, and their family, are engaged and therefore the Care Order should only remain in force if the court is satisfied that the local authority's continued intervention is proportionate and necessary. The applicant must make out a case for the discharge of the Care Order by bringing forward evidence to show that this would be in the interests of the child. The findings of fact that underpinned the making of the Care Order will be relevant to the court’s assessment, but the weight to be given to them will vary from case to case.

In JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944 the President of the Family Division clarified that a Care Order should not be used as a means to ensure that a local authority meets the duties that it has with respect to children in need in its area, nor should it be used to influence the deployment of resources.

In determining Emi’s application to discharge the Care Order, I have considered the factors in the welfare checklist in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989.

Wishes and Feelings - Emi’s wishes are clear, in that they want to return to the care of their mother. This has always been their position and has now been achieved. In their final statement Emi expresses that they are excited to start experiencing a sort of normal life back in my mother’s care. These feelings are a significant shift from how Emi was feeling in January 2025, which they described as disappointed … badly let down … distraught and I always feel down, every single day. There is never a day when I am fully content in myself. It is difficult to imagine the impact of those feelings on Emi, alongside completing a college course and navigating teenage friendships and pressures.

In relation to the order regulating their placement, Emi makes clear in their statement that they feel different from their friends at college, as they are required to ask their foster carer and social worker for permission to do certain things. However, as set out above, by the time of the final hearing Emi’s position had shifted and they no longer opposed the Care Order remaining in force. In my judgment this highlights that Emi’s primary concern was to be with their mother, rather than the terms of any order. Emi has been clear that they will follow the safety plan regarding their father and other identified risks, whatever order regulates their placement.

Emi is also clear that they do not currently wish to engage in joint counselling with their mother. This was something that was planned in their original care plan, in the form of family therapy. Emi likes seeing their counsellor and feels the work done in their sessions is beneficial, however they do not want their mother also involved. Emi wishes to maintain a good relationship with their siblings. Under a Care Order the local authority have a duty to promote contact between Emi and their siblings, some of whom remain in long-term foster care.

Needs - Emi has been clear that their emotional needs will only be met by being reunited with their mother. Emi’s emotional wellbeing is supported by their engagement in counselling and the local authority have committed to funding a further 12 sessions. Emi’s educational needs are met by attending college. They are able to access their current college from their mother’s home and will start their second year in September 2025. Emi has aspirations to attend University. Were Emi to remain subject to a Care Order, they would be entitled to financial and practical support with their attendance at University from the local authority.

Change - Were Emi’s Care Order to be discharged, this would be a change they would welcome. It would end the need for Emi to ensure their social worker was aware of their whereabouts and to keep the local authority informed of their plans to stay away with friends, etc. However, as Emi would be subject to a Supervision Order and a Child in Need Plan, they would still need to engage in regular meetings. The safety plan for Emi and their mother is the same whatever order regulates their placement.

Background - Emi is nearly 17; they have been in foster care for over two years. They are a sensitive, intelligent and respectful young person. They have complied with all the expectations of them since their placement in foster care. Within the original care proceedings, there were concerns that Emi was thinking of running away from foster care. This has not happened, and Emi consented to their foster carer being able to see their location at all times to provide reassurance that they were safe and not meeting up with their father.

Harm - I said in my March 2024 judgment that Emi’s childhood experiences are likely to have left them with a distorted view as to positive adult relationships and a healthy family dynamic. I concluded in that judgment that Emi would be at risk of harm were they to return to their mother’s care, as they remained vulnerable to predatory and abusive adults, including their father. I concluded that without the necessary protective work being done with Emi and their mother, the risk to Emi was too high for me to approve a plan for them to return home. I acknowledged that this decision would cause Emi’s emotional harm and distress.

Since February 2025 Emi has engaged in protective work with the ISW. The recommendation from the resulting report was that Emi should return home with the Care Order remaining in place to provide safeguarding from the risks of further harm to Emi. The ISW advised that Emi had engaged well with the work and demonstrated a developing understanding of grooming, exploitation, and the risks associated with unhealthy relationships.

However, the ISW also concluded that Emi remains hesitant to fully accept the risks posed by their father, which may indicate emotional conflict or loyalty. Emi was reluctant to talk about their father and did not want to discuss the findings I had made in the previous proceedings. When discussing risk levels Emi positioned their father in the amber circle, expressing uncertainty about their feelings toward him, but not considering him dangerous enough for the red circle. Objectively the risks posed by the father would place him in the red circle and Emi’s lack of insight into these risks continue to impact their self-protective capacity in situations involving him.

The ISW worked with Emi and their mother on drawing up a safety plan to support Emi’s return home and ensure effective safeguards are in place to minimise and manage the ongoing risks. This safety plan has been further developed and updated, however the key safeguards are the same and have been agreed by Emi. Were the safety plan to be breached, there would be a significant risk to Emi’s physical and emotional wellbeing. Despite their continued ambivalence about their father’s level of risk, Emi has not had contact with him and has been clear that they will comply with boundaries in place in relation to this relationship.

In my March 2024 judgment, I highlighted my concerns about the ongoing police investigation and the impact any charges and potential criminal trial would have on Emi. The police investigation remains ongoing, over two years after the father was arrested and interviewed. Were the father to be charged and the matter progress to a criminal trial, there remains potential for Emi to be a witness within these proceedings and they would need considerable emotional support to help them manage this process.

Capacity of Carers – There is no dispute that Emi’s mother can meet their need to live at home and can provide them with love, warmth and a sense of belonging. Emi’s mother also supports their education and need to maintain a relationship with their siblings. In my March 2024 judgment I concluded: I am not satisfied that the mother can currently meet Emi’s emotional needs or Emi’s need to keep themself safe. That was part of the rationale for the updated final care plan providing for intervention work with the mother. As set out above, that work did not commence until February 2025, after Emi issued their application to discharge the Care Order.

The ISW undertook 8 sessions of direct work with Emi’s mother, including 2 joint sessions with mother and child. The ISW advised that the mother continues to show ambivalence regarding the father’s past behaviours, as follows: She was able to reflect on the impact of abuse on the children but struggled to fully accept the risks he presents. She appeared conflicted, at times expressing belief … but also presenting doubt. She showed openness to learning about healthy vs. unhealthy relationships and has fully acknowledged her role in safeguarding [Emi].

In my March 2024 judgment I concluded: The mother continues to have strong feelings of loyalty to the father and a desire to see him and draws emotional support from their relationship. At the time of that final hearing the parents had not met up for many months. However, the mother acknowledges and accepts that since those proceedings concluded she has again resumed meeting up with the father. In her final statement she describes him as a close friend and is clear that she will maintain that friendship by meeting him away from the home.

The mother has consistently said that she would not allow the father to come into contact with Emi, and will comply with all aspects of the safety plan, however I agree with the conclusion of the ISW: The robust safety plan developed collaboratively provides a framework for protection; however, its effectiveness remains contingent upon the mother’s willingness and ability to maintain firm boundaries with the father - a capacity compromised by her unresolved emotional attachment and reluctance to fully acknowledge potential harm. This fundamental disconnect between intellectual understanding and emotional acceptance creates a precarious foundation for [Emi’s] safety.

It is important to stress that the intervention work with Emi’s mother took place over 3 weeks. Whilst I am satisfied the work was appropriate and tailored to this family’s needs, the timescale over which it was undertaken allowed little time for reflection and change. However, Emi’s mother’s position in respect of the father and the risks he poses has remained steadfast over the past two years. As she makes clear in her statement, their connection remains and despite the very serious findings the court has made, and the ongoing police investigation, she views him as her friend. In my judgment this is unlikely to change.

Alongside the intervention work, another aspect of Emi’s care plan was for their mother to engage in emotional wellbeing support. This has not happened. The local authority did refer the mother to the in-house emotional wellbeing support practitioner in April 2024, however they declined to work with the mother given the severity of the issues and recommended a referral to PAUSE, which is a service that works with women who have had more than one child removed from their care. They offer an 18-month programme that involves a trusting relationship between a woman and their Pause Practitioner. A referral was made to PAUSE however, the mother declined this support. The mother has also been clear that she is not willing to engage in group work, however she has committed to working with the Solutions Worker in relation to boundaries and positive parenting. The local authority have confirmed that the mother can reactivate the referral to PAUSE in the future should she change her position.

For over two years the local authority have been Emi’s corporate parent through the interim and final Care Orders. Emi’s foster carers provided for their day to day needs and although Emi did not consider it a close relationship, they had no criticism of their carers. However, in terms of the local authority’s parenting, Emi has been clear that they consider it to have been harmful and neglectful. Emi has felt let down and sidelined by those trusted to meet their needs. These feelings stem from the local authority failure to progress the approved care plan and to keep Emi informed as to what was happening.

Whilst Emi’s supported move home and the intervention work with the ISW are welcomed, it should not have required Emi to issue these proceedings for the promised work and reviews to have been properly actioned. Had Emi not had a good relationship with their solicitor and been proactive and mature in contacting Ms Raitt when upset that matters were not progressing as planned, and had Ms Raitt not been willing to represent Emi pro bono, until legal aid was granted later in these proceedings, it is probable that no progress would have been made for Emi. This would have left Emi distressed, depressed and vulnerable to absconding home with no safety planning in place.

I was further concerned that despite advocating that Emi remain subject to a Care Order, the local authority did not file an updated Care Plan in time for the final hearing within these proceedings. The only Care Plan before the court at the time of the final hearing was the plan from 2024 for Emi to remain in foster care. The local authority have submitted that this was not a failing on their part, as the order of 31 January 2025 only directed the filing of a social work statement addressing a number of matters, including the alternative care plan were Emi to return home. I accept that there was no specific direction for the filing of an updated Care Plan, however by the time of the final hearing Emi’s plan had changed and they had returned to their care of their mother.

The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations 2010 place an obligation on the local authority to review a child’s Care Plan and revise the plan, or prepare a new plan, if change is required. When I enquired as to this revised plan and why it had not been filed with the court for the final hearing, I was told that it was not available. After the final hearing, at my direction, the local authority filed a revised Care Plan for Emi dated 27 May 2025 and approved by the Service Manager on 28 May 2025. This plan confirmed the matters set out in the social worker’s final statement and discussed during the final hearing, including the planned support for Emi and their mother.

Unfortunately, despite the Service Manager flagging in her statement filed in February 2025 that the local authority were committed to ‘wider learning’ from the failures in Emi’s case, there was also no update in relation to this learning available at the final hearing. Following the final hearing I was updated by email that a new process has been commenced ensuring that, upon transfer between teams once proceedings conclude, a child’s final care plan is reviewed in full alongside reviewing the transfer summary and a handover discussion with the previous team, to ensure that the incoming team are clear on what is to be actioned. Furthermore, Children Services are seeking to amend the transfer summary episode on Mosaic (the internal case management system) to include a fuller reference to a child’s final care plan and the actions that need to be taken forward. This is currently in development. No timescale has been provided for this development.

Looking forward, the local authority state they wish to safeguard and support Emi at home in their mother’s care. Funding has been approved for ongoing counselling for Emi and intervention by the Solutions Service. At my direction, the local authority social worker filed a statement setting out the differences in support and services Emi would be entitled to, were they to remain subject to a Care Order and were the order were discharged and replaced with a Supervision Order.

Were Emi to remain subject to a Care Order they would become a 'Former Relevant Child' at 18 years old. They would be entitled the full support of the Care Leaving Service including a Needs Assessment and Pathway Planning, visits every 8 weeks, access to the full Leaving Care Local Offer which includes access to setting up home allowances, help finding and sustaining suitable housing, health and education funds and support to access relevant benefits, education or training and employment. The access to these supports would remain, even were Emi to live at home with their mother under the Care Order, as they would remain a looked after child.

In contrast, were the Care Order to now be discharged, Emi would become a ‘Qualifying Care Leaver’ and would be entitled to an assessment of their needs up to the age of 21 (or 25 if in full time education), but not automatically entitled to help and support.

I am satisfied that it is in Emi’s best interests to remain at home in the care of their mother, as agreed by all parties. At nearly 17 years old, Emi’s wishes and feelings carry considerable weight and their distress at remaining in foster care is clear. Emi and their mother are committed to complying with the safety plan, which is the cornerstone to ensuring Emi’s safety and wellbeing as they navigate the remainder of their childhood.

I have carefully considered whether the imposition of a Care Order remains necessary and proportionate and in Emi’s best interests. I am mindful that neither Emi nor their mother are now advocating for the Care Order to be discharged and Emi is open to receiving support from the local authority after they turn 18.

The provision of support and services is not usually a proportionate reason to make or retain a Care Order for a young person and such an order can usually only be justified where it is necessary to safeguard the child concerned and in their best interests. The Guardian rightly questions whether a Care Order remains necessary and proportionate.

The failings of the local authority up to February 2025 are significant and impacted negatively on Emi and their family. I can have no confidence that were the Care Order discharged and Emi placed on a Child in Need plan, supported by a Supervision Order, that Emi and their mother would have continued access to the services that I assessed as essential back in March 2024. As I said to Emi at the final hearing, I want them to have access to all available support services to maximise their choices and options for their future.

More determinative, however, are my remaining concerns about the risk of further harm to Emi and the need for the local authority to continue to monitor this and work with Emi and their mother to ensure the risk is maintained and managed. I remain troubled that neither Emi, nor their mother, are accepting of the risks posed by the father; despite the intervention work that has now been undertaken. This concern is echoed by the ISW whose supportive recommendation for Emi to transition back to the care of their mother was on the basis that the Care Order would remain in force to ensure regular review meetings, continued therapeutic support, and stringent monitoring of the safety plan implementation which he considered imperative to mitigate risks and respond promptly to any boundary violations or safety concerns that may emerge.

I also remain concerned in relation to the ongoing police investigation and the impact this could have on Emi. Were the father to be charged with criminal offences there would likely be a need for Emi, and those who have parental responsibility for them, to be involved in decision making as to whether they are called as a witness in those proceedings. I am not satisfied that Emi’s mother would be motivated by Emi’s best interests at this point. I am clear that there is a need for the local authority to continue to share parental responsibility for Emi, in order to be involved with such important decisions, should they arise before Emi is 18.

Finally, I have also factored in Emi’s important relationship with their siblings. Under a Care Order the local authority have a responsibility to arrange contact between the siblings for Emi’s benefit. Were this order to be replaced with a Supervision Order, the local authority would still have a duty to arrange contact between the siblings that remain in care and Emi, but this would be driven by their needs, which are different to Emi’s. The local authority would have no duty to facilitate contact between the siblings who are not looked after children and this would include Emi, were the Care Order to be discharged.

This difference is amplified by the lack of any planning for sibling contact for Emi in the filed Supervision Order Support Plan. In contrast, in Emi’s updated final Care Plan, the local authority have set out the arrangements for Emi to maintain regular contact with all their siblings, some of which is facilitated and arranged by the local authority. Under a Care Order this contact will be regularly reviewed and a contact review meeting is scheduled for late June 2025.

Considering all the matters set out above, I am satisfied that Emi positively benefits both now, and potentially in the future, from remaining a Child in Care and, as such, it is both necessary and proportionate for the Care Order to remain in force.

As I said to Emi at the final hearing, I am grateful that they brought the matter back before the court, in order that I became aware of the failings of the local authority. Whilst matters have ended happily for Emi, as they are home with their mother where they want to be, these proceedings should not have been necessary and it is crucial not to minimise the stress, upset and anxiety these proceedings, and the failures to progress the care plan, had on Emi, as a young person who has already suffered harm in the care of their family.