Sara Granshaw and Alison Williams in Oxfordshire County Council v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 34 (B)
28th Mar 2025 | Cases
Sara Granshaw appeared on behalf of the applicant Local Authority and Alison Williams was instructed by Dawson Cornwell for the second respondent Father in Oxfordshire County Council v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 34 (B); care proceedings. Proceedings were issued following concerns about the mother’s parenting after she brought the children A (now aged 17) and B (now aged 10) to the UK from another jurisdiction.
Both children have complex health and educational needs. The father came to the UK from his home country to be assessed and sought to care for both children in his home country. The case was complicated by the need to find out information about the support services available to the children in the other jurisdiction, including accessing special education needs and therapeutic services, the legal processes for accessing such services and how the transition for the children could take place.
At an earlier hearing, before A turned 17, it was agreed by all parties that A would relocate to live with the father in their home country, following A’s wishes. A series of delays then followed before the court could make a final decision regarding B.
The local authority’s final care plan for B ended up recommending that B lives with the father and the father has permission to permanently remove B from the jurisdiction. While the mother agreed that she was not able to look after B, she did not want B to relocate to live with Father and A out of the jurisdiction. The mother was concerned about losing contact with B and was not convinced that the father, or the country he currently resided in, could provide for B’s needs.
The court noted that each option carried a potentially adverse impact on B’s emotional and psychological wellbeing through the potential to disrupt her face-to-face time with either parent. However, the court was ultimately satisfied that it was in B’s best interests for her to live with the father and that B’s needs could be met by the father and relevant services in the other jurisdiction. The court granted a child arrangements order for B to live with the father and the father was given permission to relocate B permanently out of the jurisdiction.
The court also considered that section 20 of the Children Act 1989 could be used with the father giving his consent to B remaining accommodated by the local authority in a residential placement whilst a transition plan to move B into the father’s full-time care following the final hearing was implemented. The operation of the “lives with” child arrangements order in the father’s favour and section 20(9) of the Children Act 1989 meant that only the father’s consent was required and that the mother’s consent was not required.”
