Hannah Rought-Brooks, of the Garden Court Chambers Family Law Team, represented the Father of the children in proceedings at the Central Family Court.
See full judgment: A local Authority v M & Ors [2024] EWFC 243 (B)
The case related to a complex situation involving a sibling group of four with complex needs.
The three younger children, B, C and D all had a diagnosis of Autism and incredibly complex needs. C and D cannot communicate verbally and B’s verbal communication is limited. C and B have significant delayed in their cognitive and social functioning (likely falling in the lowest one percent of their peers in those domains). B, C, and D have experienced additional physical needs associated with their conditions and difficulties. All three children have various sensory needs. They attend schools that specialise in teaching children with learning disabilities.
In these proceedings, the court received expert psychological assessments of all four children and a paediatric assessment of the younger three children, as part of a multi-disciplinary analysis considered necessary by the court (which also featured occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and physiotherapy assessments). These played an important part in determining the placement, care and contact needs for the children going forward.
The parents did not contest the care plans for the children to remain in foster care, and the focus of the proceedings was around ensuring that the needs of the children would be met in their placements and around the parent’s contact. The Mother argued that the Father should not have contact with the younger children, that the court should use its discretion under article 34(4), and also requested additional contact between herself and the children.
The Father argued (as did the local authority) that the local authority is obliged to promote the children’s relationship with family members (see para.15 Schedule 2 Children Act 1989) and must allow reasonable contact between a child and their parent (s.34(1) Children Act 1989). The court found that, based on the evidence, it was not appropriate or necessary for the Court to interfere with the exercise of the s34(1) Children Act 1989 duty currently being performed by the local authority.
The children’s solicitor requested that the judgment be published in order to support the work being undertaken by the children’s solicitor (Alia Lewis of Duncan Lewis) in conjunction with Family Law Advice for the Neurodivergent Community (FLANC), to achieve better working practices in cases involving neurodivergent children with complex needs.
Hannah Rought-Brooks, of the Garden Court Family Law Team, represented the Father of the children in proceedings at the Central Family Court.
