Mother Reunited with Her Baby After Successfully Completing an FDAC Trial for Change

Case Summary

Our client faced the removal of her newborn baby into foster care at birth. She was living with heroin addiction and was in a controlling and violent relationship that had cut her off from her family, her support network and the local authority. Twelve months later her child was back in her care.

The mother was represented throughout by Nicola Sailsman of our Child Care Law team.

Facing Removal at Birth

By the time our client got in contact with Cartwright King, the local authority’s care plan was to remove the baby at birth followed by foster care. This decision had been made due to the mother’s drug use and the relationship she was in, which was both physically dangerous and controlling. The relationship the mother was in also prevented her from working with professionals or reaching out to anyone who could have supported her.

Isolation is a common feature of coercive control. A parent who cannot safely attend appointments or speak openly to a social worker will usually be assessed as unable to engage. Once that is recorded, it is taken into account at every stage of the decision making about the baby.

The turning point came when the father made serious threats to harm both the mother and the baby. She reported him, resulting in him being arrested and remanded in custody.

Getting Mother Into the FDAC

We were instructed to represent the mother in the care proceedings, which had already been referred to the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) by social services.

The FDAC works differently to standard care proceedings. The mother had a specialist team working with her rather than only assessing her, and she went back before the same judge throughout for regular reviews. Those reviews are held without lawyers, so she spoke to the judge directly about how she was getting on. The period of work is called a Trial for Change.

A referral does not mean the FDAC will take the case on. They carry out their own assessment first, and not every parent is accepted. We supported the mother through the process, ensured she understood what was being asked of her and why, and helped her present her position properly. She got through the assessment and the FDAC took the case on.

From that point she worked closely with us, with the allocated social worker and with the FDAC team, committing herself fully to the Trial for Change.

We spoke to the mother very regularly throughout, both about her progress and about what she was worried about. The most anxious point came when the FDAC asked for the Trial for Change to be extended by a further 12 weeks. Extensions of that kind feel like a setback to a parent who is already doing everything asked of them, and a large part of our work at that stage was explaining what the extension actually meant and helping her stay on track.

Child Returned Under a Supervision Order

The mother successfully completed the Trial for Change. Her child was transitioned back into her care under a 12-month supervision order. She was absolutely delighted with the outcome.

The Law On Removal At Birth and FDAC

Where a local authority believes a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it can apply to the court for a care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989. While the case is running the court can make an interim care order, which is what allows a baby to be removed at birth.

Removal at birth is one of the most serious steps a court can take. The court has to be satisfied that nothing less will protect the child, and that separating a newborn from her mother is a proportionate response. The Supreme Court described this as a decision to be made only where nothing else will do.

Care proceedings are meant to conclude within 26 weeks under Section 32 of the Children Act 1989, although the court can extend that where an extension is necessary to resolve the case justly. FDAC cases are a common reason for extension, because meaningful change in addiction cases rarely fits a fixed timetable. That is the legal mechanism sitting behind the further 12 weeks in this case.

A supervision order under Section 35 of the Children Act 1989 puts the child under the supervision of the local authority for up to a year and can be extended. Importantly, it does not give the local authority parental responsibility. The child lives with the parent, and the parent makes the decisions, with the local authority advising and assisting. Moving from a plan of removal at birth to a supervision order is a very significant shift in outcome.

Why Early Legal Advice Matters

Parents in this position often assume the outcome is already decided and in this case it very nearly was. What changed it was the mother finding the courage to report the father, and then a referral being made early enough for the FDAC to be a realistic option.

If you are facing care proceedings, or the local authority has told you it intends to apply for a court order about your child, take legal advice as early as you can. Early advice is what creates options.

Nicola’s View

“When you’re told the local authority wants to remove your baby at birth, it can feel like the decision has already been made and you’re out of options. It’s important that parents know this is not the case. The court still has to be satisfied that all alternatives to keep your child safe have been explored. To any parent in this position, get legal advice as early as you can, to keep as many options open as possible.”

Nicola Sailsman is a legal representative in the Child Care Law team at Cartwright King based in our Birmingham office. She represents parents in care proceedings, including cases before the Family Drug and Alcohol Court.