Re M (A Minor) (Care Order: Threshold Conditions)
The time at which the court must decide whether a child is suffering significant harm is the time when the local authority first took protective measures, not the time of the hearing.
Facts
M's father murdered his mother in front of him when he was four months old, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. M was placed with foster parents, and his half siblings went to live with a cousin of his mother. The cousin later wanted to look after M as well. The local authority applied for a care order. At the time of the hearing, M was well cared for by his foster parents and was not suffering harm.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the threshold was satisfied. Lord Mackay said that the court must consider whether the child is suffering significant harm at the date when the local authority initiated the procedure for protection, provided that the arrangements made for the child had been continuously in place since then. At the time when the local authority first acted, M had been suffering significant harm, because of the loss of his mother and the father's conduct. The court could therefore make a care order, and the case was decided on the child's welfare.
Related cases on care proceedings and adoption
- Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11, [2016] 1 FLR 1
- Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911
- Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11
- Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, [2014] 1 WLR 563
- Re G (A Child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [2005] UKHL 68, [2006] 1 AC 576
- Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563
- Re J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 9, [2013] 1 AC 680
- Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
