Luton Borough Council v R & Ors [2024] EWFC 52 (7 August 2024)

Krina Parmar represented the father in an application for an Interim Care Order concerning a 13-year-old girl (X). The Local Authority raised concerns after the child alleged sexual abuse by several family members, including her brother, brother-in-law, and paternal grandfather. The child also exhibited severe mental health issues, including self-harm and suicidal thoughts. The family members did not accept the allegations, and parallel criminal proceedings were initiated following their arrests.

The Local Authority expressed concerns about the parents’ ability prioritise the needs of the child above those of the accused family members. The child was therefore initially accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act and placed in Local Authority foster care. After absconding from her placement and being hospitalised for self-harm and suicidal concerns, the child was made subject to an Interim Care Order and remained in the care of the Local Authority. It was the view of the Local Authority that the parents did not show any insight or acknowledge the concerns raised, and instead asserted that it was the child’s mental health that had led to the allegations.

Unfortunately the child did not settle in foster care the placement broke down. The Local Authority were unable to source an alternative foster placement and as such decided to place the child in a Travelodge where she was cared for by her sisters. After a short period of time the sisters stated that they were unable to care for the child and as such the mother took over the child’s care. Notably, the judge observed that this decision was taken “without any consultation with the Children's Guardian and, it would appear, without notice to the Independent Reviewing Officer”.

The judge noted that the Local Authority were not able to produce documentary evidence of the decision making surrounding their change of plans for the child’s care. There was no record of placement approval, revised interim care plan, safety plan or confirmation of Service Director approval made available at the time the child was placed in the care of her mother.

Upon learning of these developments, the Court expressed significant concern about the child’s accommodation, deeming the care provision for the child being an unsuitable and unregulated placement. The case was then formally transferred to the High Court.

The court was critical of the evidence given by Head of Service and Operations Manager, who placed reliance on what they described as a ‘robust’ risk assessment. Upon reading the document, the Judge said that the risk assessment could not be described as robust, rather MacDonald J described it as “cursory” and “superficial”.

The Judge concluded that alleged sexual abuse is a complex and grave safeguarding issue which requires a careful and precise forensic approach. The Judge criticised the “casual and cavalier approach adopted by the local authority to risk assessment and decision making for X in this case”, further observing that the local authorities decision making was “the antithesis of the correct approach and one which manifestly fails to safeguard X.”

The judge’s criticism reflects the crucial importance of careful and robust risk assessment and adherence to proper safeguarding procedures in child welfare cases and to ensure that decisions are made in consultation with all relevant parties. The case also highlights the nationwide difficulty with securing placements in particular regulated placements, where the supply for placements cannot always accommodate the demand that exists.

Read the full case here: Luton Borough Council v R & Ors [2024] EWFC 52

Duncan Lewis Family and Child Care

The ‘exceptional’ Family & Child Care team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors dispenses advice on the full spectrum of family law matters, with a particular emphasis on international child abduction cases, special guardianship orders, and wardship issues. Our solicitors have broad knowledge spanning surrogacy issues, adoption cases and financial proceedings, and is described in The Legal 500 UK independent legal directory as "particularly adept at acting for children in public law care cases." The Family team has extensive expertise in advising on forced marriage and female genital mutilation matters, and a great deal of experience in handling high-net-worth divorces, cohabitation agreements, non-molestation injunctions, and care and emergency protection orders.

Find full details of this case on Bailii’s website here.