Z (A Child), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

The Local Authority initiated care proceedings concerning five children due to concerns primarily about one child, referred to as Child Z, who was experiencing poor weight gain linked to a diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1). The proceedings included applications for interim and full supervision orders for four children and care orders for Child Z, alongside a declaration under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction for Child Z's treatment by in-patient admission to a hospital.

Child Z's weight began to decline around May 2018, leading to multiple hospital admissions between October 2018 and February 2019. The parents expressed concerns about the hospital's feeding recommendations, preferring an alternative feed that was not nutritionally complete according to medical professionals. The parents were reported to have been confused and mistrusting of medical advice, and there were tensions between the parents and hospital staff, including an incident of aggression from the father.

The Local Authority, supported by the hospital and a jointly appointed expert, Dr Zeitlin, raised concerns that the parents' non-compliance with medical advice might be putting Child Z at risk. However, Dr Zeitlin's expert opinion, issued months into the proceedings, found no evidence of falsification of symptoms by the family but noted over-reporting of some symptoms and non-compliance with treatment regimes.

Following a period of hospital admission, Child Z was discharged to parental care with a plan for ongoing support under Child in Need plans. The parents cooperated more fully as proceedings progressed, and the Local Authority sought permission to withdraw the care proceedings, which was agreed by all parties and supported by the children's guardian.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Local Authority satisfied the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 to justify continuing care proceedings.
2. Whether permission should be granted to withdraw the care proceedings in the best interests and welfare of the children concerned.
3. The court's approach in balancing the child's welfare when considering an application to withdraw care proceedings under Family Procedure Rules r 29.4.

Arguments of the Parties

Local Authority's Arguments

• Initially, there were grounds to believe the threshold under section 31 was met due to concerns about Child Z's poor weight gain and parental non-compliance with medical advice.
• Following expert evidence and developments during proceedings, the Local Authority conceded that the threshold criteria were no longer met and supported withdrawal of the care proceedings.
• Proposed that all five children remain subject to Child in Need plans under a working agreement to ensure ongoing support and monitoring.

Parents' Arguments

• Contended that the threshold for care proceedings under section 31 was never met.
• Expressed concerns about hospital feeding plans, preferring alternative feeding methods which they believed were better tolerated by Child Z.
• The father acknowledged prior frustrations and occasional unacceptable behavior but emphasized willingness to cooperate with professionals and disputed claims of parental mismanagement.
• Opposed hospital admission for Child Z without a clear treatment plan and emphasized the child's recent improvements at home and school.

Children's Guardian's Position

• Supported the application to withdraw the proceedings.
• Highlighted the importance of good and consistent communication between professionals and parents to avoid future conflicts.
• Emphasized that children should not be subjected to repeated proceedings and that disagreements should be resolved clearly and promptly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the complex medical and social background of the case, including the history of Child Z's diagnosis, feeding difficulties, and parental concerns. The court noted that the initial grounds for proceedings were well-founded given Child Z's chronic malnutrition and parental non-compliance with medical advice.

The involvement of the jointly appointed expert, Dr Zeitlin, provided an independent and objective review of the evidence, concluding that there was no evidence of falsification of symptoms but recognizing parental confusion and over-reporting of symptoms. The social worker's observations also supported a collaborative and child-focused approach, noting improvements in the family dynamic and Child Z's condition.

The court acknowledged the parents' cooperation and the development of a positive working relationship with professionals. It recognized that the Local Authority no longer met the threshold criteria under section 31, and that continuing proceedings would not serve the welfare of the children.

Applying established legal principles, the court concluded that withdrawal of the proceedings was appropriate and consistent with the children's welfare, particularly given the proposed continuation of support through Child in Need plans and the absence of any immediate safeguarding concerns requiring court intervention.

Holding and Implications

The court granted permission to withdraw the care proceedings initiated by the Local Authority concerning the five children.

The direct effect of this decision is that the children will no longer be subject to care proceedings, and the Local Authority will instead provide support under Child in Need plans. The parents are exonerated of any threshold findings under section 31, as no such findings were made. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but underscores the importance of careful threshold assessment and the welfare-centric approach when considering withdrawal of care proceedings. The court emphasized the need for clear communication between parents and professionals to prevent future disputes and ensure the children's ongoing welfare.