H-W (Children) and In the matter of H-W (Children) (No 2) [2022] UKSC 17 (15 June 2022)
Citation:H-W (Children) and In the matter of H-W (Children) (No 2) [2022] UKSC 17 (15 June 2022).
Subjects invoked: 97. 'Social security'.
Rule of thumb:If a parent is given a severe warning by a social worker to take certain action, or else this will be an extremely serious breach of parental duties, and they breach this warning leading to one of their children getting hurt, is there any way back for the parents or will their children be taken off them into care? Yes. There is a way back for the parents. If the breach of the social worker warning happened due to some mitigating factors, if the parents are willing to be ‘supervised’ by social work to ensure that they are taking child protection measures, then this ‘social work supervisory process’ is the next stage in the process to be considered before parents have their children taken off of them.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subject of social security. It particularly invoked the principle of ‘parental neglect’ in failing to follow ‘a severe warning from a social worker’ provided to parents about looking after their children properly.
The material facts were that M, ‘Mika’, Mika had been sexually abused as a child by her Father whilst growing up. Mika had 5 children, 3 of whom were still minors under the age of 16 – named C ‘Charlie’, D ‘Delta’, and E ‘Echo’ – they were aged 14, 11 and 9 respectively. Mika had 2 other adult children aged 19 & 22, A ‘Alpha’ and B ‘Bravo’. Mika and F, ‘Foxtrot’, Mika’s latest partner, were living together with their new-born baby/toddler.Mika’s children ‘Charlie’ and ‘Delta’ had the same Father, and Echo had another. Foxtrot was the latest Father of Mika’s 6th child. The Fathers of Alpha and Bravo, Mika’s 2 oldest children, was not stated. In other words, over the course of 22 years Mika had 6 children with 4 different Fathers. 3 of the 4 Fathers were named and 1 of the Fathers was not. 1 of Mika’s 2 adult children, A ‘Alpha’, who was the oldest at 22 years old, was an extremely disturbed individual. Mika was severely warned by a social worker to the effect of, ‘do not under any circumstances let any of your children be alone with Alpha at any time. Do not let any of them out of your sight when Alpha is around’. Mika was warned by the social worker that it would be a gross act of parent neglect to allow Alpha to be alone with any of her children at any time. Alpha was over visiting the house for a short period, when both Mika and Foxtrot were in and keeping an eye on everything. However, during a fleeting moment when Mika and Foxtrot were out of sight, Alpha still managed to lure Mika’s child ‘Echo’ away, who was 9 years old, and Alpha sexually assaulted Echo who was his younger half-sibling.
Social work deemed that Mika had not followed their warning about leaving her children alone with Alpha. Social Work therefore sought to take all of Mika’s children except the new-born off of her. Mika argued that this should not happen. Mika argued that Alpha was extremely devious and tricked both her and her child – she argued that she had taken the warning seriously but Alpha was extremely slippery and fast-acting. Mika explained that the matter had been reported to the Police, a total restraining order/total confiscation order had since been granted against Alpha banning him from their family home. Mika argued that the option of ‘Social Work supervising’ her and her husband to provide them with guidance & support had to be considered and potentially tried before her children were taken off her. Mika argued that the Court had not taken into account whether these further measures taken by Mika under ‘supervision’ would be successful to protect her children, and that there should be a retrial to consider them.
Judgment:
The Court partially upheld the arguments of Mika – they held that before Mika had her 3 children taken off of her, they had to fully explore and consider whether the new measures she had since taken with social work ‘supervising’ them could allow her to protect her children safely. A retrial was declared for this matter to hear whether Mika could ensure her children were protected with the new ‘supervised measures’ and stop them from being taken into a care-home. The Court affirmed the importance of parents being allowed to try looking after their children under ‘social work supervision’ as an important option to consider before the children are taken away.
Ratio-decidendi:
’63. During the oral argument Mr Larizadeh applied most vigour to the suggestion that this court should consider substituting supervision orders for the care orders in relation to the three children. His argument was based on the need for certainty for the children and to avoid delay. Such a position is understandable. However it cannot prevail in this case for the simple reason that a court would need to scrutinise a revised plan and be satisfied itself as to any mitigations which might address the identified risks. This court is not equipped to conduct that exercise. This court would be stepping in to make its own proportionality assessment which is contrary to the line of authority we approve emanating from In re B. 64. Therefore, the only realistic course to take in this case where, unfortunately, we have found that the judge fell into error, is to remit the case for rehearing. It is better that a different judge should hear the case. It remains to be seen what the ultimate outcome will be….’ Dame Siobhan Keegan
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.