Legal Representation of a Child in Complex Care Proceedings

Legally reviewed by: Ravi Kaur Mahey Apr 2025 In: Child Care

In this case, Cartwright King’s child care solicitor, Fiona Bowen acted for a child who at the start of proceedings was 10 years old, taking her instructions from the guardian. The case emerged from severe neglect and abuse concerns, resulting in legal interventions to ensure the child’s safety and well-being.

Background

The case began when the child was not seen for some time resulting in a referral being made to the police, who found the child to be living in squalid conditions. The police removed the child under a Police Protection Order, and further child protection medical examinations revealed the child had suffered significant physical harm. Furthermore, the child presented as extremely vulnerable, with potential autism and learning difficulties.

Initial Legal Actions

The matter went to court for the first hearing on application by the local authority. Fiona represented the child and the Interim Care Order was granted, while the parents did not attend the hearing. Due to the child’s complex needs, she was placed in a residential setting. Fiona visited the child with the guardian at the residential unit, and it was clear that the child’s complex needs would require assessment by an independent expert, jointly instructed in proceedings. The guardian with Fiona then considered the need for an independent assessment which would be considered in accordance to Part 25 Family Procedure Rules 2010.

Psychological Assessment Application

Fiona prepared and filed an application for a psychological assessment, which faced opposition from the parents who argued that such an assessment was intrusive and unnecessary. However, the court deemed the evidence essential for making a just decision, referencing section 13(6) of The Children and Families Act 2014. Fiona led the instruction for this assessment.

Police Investigation and Bail Conditions

Whilst care proceedings were being carried out, the parents were under police investigation for offences against a young person under section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Initially, the parents were prohibited from contacting any child under 18. However, a criminal hearing later varied these conditions to allow for supervised contact. In response, the local authority sought to suspend all parental contact under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989, which the court granted, with Fiona handling the hearing and supported the application.

Complexities of Dual Assessments

By this stage matters had become more complex due to a parallel psychological assessment being undertaken in criminal proceedings by another psychologist, to assess the child’s needs. This was not an assessment within care proceedings. Firstly, the police requested disclosure of the documentation from the care proceedings into the criminal proceedings. Secondly, the documentation would be used for the court to consider difficulties in obtaining of psychological evidence as the care proceedings’ psychologist was unwilling to report in the criminal context. The local authority was also concerned about the criminal psychologist’s interaction with the child.

Urgent Hearing and Judicial Decisions

An urgent hearing was held, during which Fiona represented the child’s interests, supported by senior counsel (King’s Counsel). During the hearing, the police opposed any indirect parental contact, whereas the care proceedings’ psychologist recommended its continuation. Furthermore the police stated that their psychologist should assess the child as soon as possible which concerned the local authority.

Submissions were made and the guardian instructed she wanted to receive further opinion from the jointly instructed psychologist in care proceedings, therefore revisiting this issue.

The court determined that as a public body the police in accordance with case law should not be impeded from being able to carry out its investigations however, they should give as much information as possible to be transparent about the work their psychologist wanted to undertake. The judge also granted disclosure from the care proceedings to the police. Regarding indirect contact, the judge found that there should be short pause in that for the parents pending the opinion of the criminal psychologist which should be reviewed. The matter would need to be re-listed before this judge if there continued to be a lack of agreement between professionals which did not become necessary.

Final Hearing and Resolution

The issues resolution hearing and subsequent final hearing took place following receipt of the final evidence of all parties, with the parents opposing the final care plan for continuing residential care.

At the final hearing, oral evidence was heard from the social worker, father, guardian and psychologist. The mother was represented by counsel (she did not attend), and the father represented himself, the local authority was represented by the counsel, and the child was represented by Fiona.

The parents opposed (s31(2) Children Act 1989) stating they were not responsible for the state of the home when the child was removed from their care. Therefore, they opposed the final care order, seeking the child to return to their care.

Fiona cross examined all witnesses including her witness, the guardian, after which the judge granted the final care order with a plan for the child to continue to stay at the residential unit. Parental contact was to be kept under review which included indirect contact for the parents to the child through photographs.

Throughout the complex legal proceedings, Fiona conducted all advocacy personally, demonstrating a dedicated approach to safeguarding the child’s best interests.