Family Law

Child Protection Cases

Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33

Key Points

• ‘Significant harm’ under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is an ordinary term to be applied without gloss by the trial judge.
• When considering if the threshold has been crossed:
  • Parental character is relevant insofar as it may affect parenting quality.
  • Intention (or lack thereof) to cause harm is irrelevant.

Facts

• A 3-year-old girl had lived in foster care since birth, but had frequent and positive contact with her biological parents:
• The mother had a troubled background, including:
  • Convictions for fraud and perverting the course of justice.
  • Serious mental health issues.
  • Experts found she had a propensity for dishonesty.
• The father also had an extensive criminal record, mainly for dishonesty and recreational drug use.
• The local authority issued care proceedings, arguing that both parents’ psychological and behavioural issues would impair their ability to provide ‘good enough’ care.
• Trial judge: although a loving bond clearly existed between the parents and the child, the threshold under s.31(2) CA 1989 was crossed. A care order was granted with a view to adoption.
• Court of Appeal: upheld the trial judge’s order. However, both judges expressed unease about proportionality of the order, as the child had not suffered any actual harm.

Issue

• Was the trial judge wrong to find the s.31(2) threshold crossed, given (i) that the child had not yet suffered actual harm, and (ii) there was a strong emotional bond with the parents? Was there enough evidence that the child was likely to suffer ‘significant harm’?