Care orders - expert reports - threshold criteria - parents suffering severe learning difficulties - removal of children
Re L (children) (threshold criteria): CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Keene, Wall, Wilson): 25 August 2006



The appellant parents (P) appealed against a decision that the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 had been established.



P, who had two children aged seven and ten, suffered from severe learning difficulties and had been supported in their parenting by the respondent local authority. Following an allegation from a pupil at the children's school that the father had whipped the children, the local authority was granted an interim care order and the children were placed in temporary foster care. Thereafter, the local authority brought care proceedings. It initially sought to rely on the allegation that the children had been whipped to establish the threshold criteria, but subsequently realised that it was unlikely to establish that allegation. The local authority relied on allegations that the father was aggressive, that he had failed to protect his daughter from a sexual assault from a known paedophile, and that the children were at risk of emotional harm from P's actions or neglect.



A chartered psychologist (W) was instructed to compile a report. The judge, having regard to W's evidence, held that the threshold criteria had been crossed. P contended that it had not been open to the judge to hold that the criteria had been crossed only by reference to the evidence of W. They submitted that, until the removal of the children, the local authority had never taken the view, despite being involved with them throughout their lives, that the children would be better off elsewhere than with their parents.



Held, the family courts should not remove children and place them in care because their parents were of low intelligence. The children should be removed only if they were at risk of harm, otherwise their removal would amount to social engineering, which was wholly impermissible. In this case, the evidence of W was not sufficient for a conclusion that the threshold criteria had been crossed. Accordingly, the judge's decision was set aside. The matter was remitted for rehearing.



Appeal allowed.



Richard Hickmet for the first appellant; Sarah Trumper for the second appellant; Sarah Campbell for the respondent.