![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Birmingham City Council v EH & Anor [2025] EWFC 92 (B) (27 January 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/92.html Cite as: [2025] EWFC 92 (B) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IMPORTANT NOTICE This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. |
Neutral citation: [2025] EWFC 92 (B)
Case No: BM24C50255
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM
Priory Courts, 33 Bull Street,
Birmingham
B4 6DS
Date: 27 January 2025
Before:
DISTRICT JUDGE PARKER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL |
Applicant |
|
- and - | |
|
(1) EH (2) THE CHILD (Through his Children's Guardian) |
Respondents |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MS HANNAH RAINSFORD (instructed by Birmingham Children's Trust) for the Applicant
MS HAYLEY CHEW (of Carvers Law) for the First Respondent
MR CYRUS RASHVAND (of Cartwright King Solicitors) for the Children's Guardian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
"The paramount consideration for a court when considering an outcome for a child is that child's welfare.
It is a principle of the law that the welfare of a child is best met by maintaining the connection with birth parents to as full an extent as possible.
That principle is underpinned by application of the least interventionist principle enshrined in section 1(6).
Adherence to those principles reflects and respects both the importance of the right to family life set out in Article 8(1) of ECHR and the limited scope for interference with that right as set out in the exceptions in Article 8(2).
Interference in the right to family life, which is the right both of the parent and of the child, is parametered by necessity, proportionality and legality.
As a consequence, the permanent severing of ties between a child and her birth parents is an outcome only to be ordered in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare.
To arrive at that conclusion the possibility of parental care or, in the alternative, care by members of the wider birth family must be shown to be options which are not realistic either by reason of unavailability [for example, as in this case] (ie they do not exist) or because such care cannot meet the welfare needs of the child.
That option of parental or family care should not be rejected if identified deficits could be remedied through appropriate and proportionate support provided by the local authority, even if such support would be necessary for an extended period of time.
In order to arrive at a valid conclusion that a child's welfare requires their permanent removal from parental/family care it is necessary to consider individually all of the competing options for care, to assess their respective strengths and weaknesses and then to look at those options against each other to ensure that every option is fully considered against every other option.
Having done so and identified the outcome most able to meet the welfare needs of the child, it is necessary to consider whether that outcome is itself a proportionate interference in the rights of the child."
MR RASHVAND: I will just quickly take instructions on that point but the dispensing with mother's consent?
JUDGE PARKER: I believe that I have already provided for it in the draft order.