Judge raps council for “casual and cavalier” approach to risk assessment and decision making in relation to vulnerable teenage girl

A judge sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice has criticised a council seeking to implement a care plan “wholly inconsistent” with the court’s assessment of risk and welfare.

In Luton Borough Council v R & Ors [2024] EWFC 52 , Mr Justice MacDonald concluded: “The casual and cavalier approach adopted by the local authority to risk assessment and decision making for X in this case is the antithesis of the correct approach and one which manifestly fails to safeguard X.”

The case concerned the welfare of X, aged nearly 14 years old.

In December 2023, the council received a referral detailing that X had alleged that she had been sexually abused by her brother-in-law. She also said that she had been sexually assaulted by her paternal grandfather in the family home.

X's brother-in-law and paternal grandfather were arrested and bailed with restrictions to have no contact with X and no unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18.  

Following the initial allegations, X further alleged that, historically, she had been raped by her brother in the family home but that his assaults had now stopped.

The judge noted that a Child Protection Monitoring System record from X's school said that X had alleged her brother-in-law made her feel uncomfortable in the way he was touching her.

The judge added: “X stated that her mother told her to tell the school that she was joking about the comments she made regarding her brother-in-law touching her inappropriately. X has told the social worker that her family do not speak to her very much and that they do not tell the truth.”

On 31 January 2024, X was made subject to an interim care order. 

The judge said: “In so far as it concerned [X’s] mother, the local authority's interim threshold asserted, in summary, as follows:

1. The mother had either not recognised the signs of sexual abuse or had failed to take appropriate action to prevent the sexual abuse by three male relatives;
2. X had been unable to talk to the mother about the sexual abuse as she was worried about their reaction and a negative response.
3. The mother allowed contact between the paternal grandfather and X notwithstanding the warnings provided by other family members that he presented a risk of sexual abuse.
4. The mother hit X.
5. X did not feel safe at home and could not talk to the mother for a fear of a negative reaction.
6. The mother stated that X suffers from mental health issues which require to be taken into account when considering her allegations of sexual abuse.
7. The mother had failed to ensure X attended school on a regular basis, X's attendance level being 77%.”

Following the granting of the interim care order in January 2024, X was placed in foster care.

However, X's placement with her foster carer broke down in February 2024. Following this, the local authority was unable to source an alternative placement.

In the circumstances, the local authority decided to place X in a hotel, cared for by one of her sisters.

Towards the end of February 2024, X's placement with her sister at the hotel came to an end in circumstances where her sister's work commitments prevented her from carrying on with the arrangement. The sister informed the Guardian she was unable to care for X and left the hotel placement.

In the sister's place, the local authority determined that the mother should care for X at the hotel.

The judge observed that this decision was taken “without any consultation with the Children's Guardian and, it would appear, without notice to the IRO”. 

During a conversation with the Children's Guardian in March 2024, the Team Manager “belatedly” informed the Children's Guardian that X was in the care of her mother and that the local authority had secured an Airbnb for X and her mother to move into, said the judge.

The judge noted that no record of placement approval, revised interim care plan, safety plan / contract of expectations or confirmation of Service Director approval was made available on that date. 

Discussing the case, Mr Justice MacDonald said: “On the basis of the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that the current arrangements being pursued by the local authority are wholly inconsistent with the court's assessment of risk in these proceedings, and inconsistent with the court's assessment of X's welfare in these proceedings, and which led to the making of an interim care order on a care plan of removal as recently as 31 January 2024.  

“I am further satisfied that the local authority must in this case now accord a high level of respect for the court's assessments of risk and welfare, which should now lead in this case to those assessments being put into effect.”

He set out his reasoning as follows:

“The court's welfare assessment was based on the clear evidence that the local authority placed before the court indicating that the mother was not capable of protecting X from a risk of physical and sexual abuse. Within that context, the court approved an interim care plan removing X from the care of her parents on the basis that the local authority would implement that interim care plan. 

“In this context, and as set out above, the Court of Appeal has emphasised what Peter Jackson LJ referred to in Re T at [41] as the primacy of the court's risk and welfare evaluation, noting the observation of Sir James Munby P in Re W (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Court's Function) [2013] at [80] that it is simply not open to a local authority within proceedings to decline to accept the court's evaluation of risk, no matter how much it may disagree with the same.”

The judge found that to place X in care of her mother, the local authority had “simply disregarded” the court's assessments of risk and welfare in the proceedings.

He noted that the “purported” risk assessment in late February 2024 relied on by the Head of Service and Operations Director to demonstrate that the mother was now able to protect X from the risk of sexual abuse was “wholly deficient”.

The judge warned: “Robust risk assessment in the context of alleged sexual abuse is not derived from vague assertions about families "going on a journey with respect to disclosures of sexual abuse".  It is derived from the careful, detailed, evidence based social work practice that is articulated in, and has been repeatedly emphasised since, the Cleveland Report and which I summarised in Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019].

“The purported risk assessment relied on by the Head of Service and the Operations Director in this case fails to measure up in every respect to that long-established guidance.”

Mr Justice MacDonald concluded: “Alleged sexual abuse is a complex and grave safeguarding issue that demands a careful and precise forensic approach to evidence based risk assessment.

“[In] January 2024, this court assessed X to be at risk of sexual and physical abuse and assessed the mother and the father as being unable to protect X from that risk. In that context, the court further assessed X's welfare as requiring the removal from her parents' care. The local authority has to date placed nothing before the court that justifies those conclusions being revisited.”

He added: “It is the expectation of this court that the local authority will accord the highest respect to the risk assessment and welfare assessment of this court and will now implement the decision made by the court in these proceedings consequent on its assessment of risk and welfare [in] January 2024.”

The judge listed the matter for a further hearing this month before Arbuthnot J, for the local authority to confirm to the court that this was the course of action it intended to take, “or to seek to persuade the court on proper evidence that the court should now revisit its risk and welfare assessments”.

Lottie Winson