News
Supervision Order v No Order
Birmingham C C v S & L & 2 Children. DJ Parker 17.10.24
Although a DJ decision, it is illuminating on the approach as to whether an SO was necessary or not. The children were aged 6 and nearly 2. The court had made ICO’s, children remaining with M.
The sole issue at final hearing was whether there should be an SO for 12 months (LA) or no order (M, CG & one F). The court at this hearing was concerned with relevant threshold finding at the earlier hearing in September 2024 which was:-
‘When the mother suffers a significant relapse in her mental health she is prevented from affording the children an appropriate level of care, thus requiring appropriate intervention to safeguard them while she recovers. Without the successful completion of the recommended therapy this is a risk that is likely to remain’.
There was a psychological report on M stating a ‘large number of traits of borderline personality disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder … patterns of instability … difficulties in controlling anger… stress-related paranoid ideation … patterns of unstable and intensive relationships’.
Psychologist’s view was that M should engage with therapy of a multi-disciplinary approach; commenting that M has limited insight into professional concerns and the risks posed. Notwithstanding that, the psychologist recommended work could be done whilst the children remained in her care,
The ISW also proposed a safety contingency plan and a respite plan devised with the assistance of the psychologist.
CG at the previous September hearing, questioned whether the matter should conclude by way of a supervision order or whether or by way of a child in need plan instead, and wished for time to consider why a supervision order was considered necessary.
At this hearing the LA ’s main stance was that that there was potential for a relapse in M’s mental health requiring intervention during the recovery process and if there is no successful completion of the recommended therapy, the risk remains, (as per the threshold above).
M disputed some of the concerns voiced by LA and CG eg lack of insight into her difficulties. She maintained that a supervision order is not proportionate to the legitimate aim it sets out and is not necessary. But M was happy to continue to receive support from and to work with the local authority and other professionals.
M further argued, the issue in this case is her potential deterioration in mental health and the need for support. However, she has a significant support network and, therefore, the involvement of the local authority is likely to be negligible and that the aims set out in the supervision plan can quite equally be met under a child in need plan. A supervision order adds nothing, and, in any event, she says, lacks teeth by way of compulsion and enforcement.
The DJ highlighted factors:
M’s positive parenting assessment,
a child of school age being observed by teachers,
M’s good support network,
one F actively involved.
The DJ commented with an SO there are no looked after children reviews, no IRO, nor sharing of PR, or power of removal. SO may last for a year; an extension can be sought for 3 years, would cease on child reaching 18.
DJ alluded to ‘Recommendations to Achieve Best Practice in the Child Protection and Family Justice System (1.3.21) and ‘Recommendations to Achieve Best Practice in the Child Protection and Family Justice System: Supervision Orders’ (April 2023).
The DJ stated ‘Supplementing these principles are the six core principles to a SO:
partnership and co-production with children and families
multi agency and multi disciplinary working
tailored plans, with on going risks, including the findings and conclusions of the court
resource clarity
formal and robust review
accountability
DJ referred to the article ‘A review of Supervision Orders; where are we now ? Are the worth the paper they are printed on (2024 Family Law 1010)
The DJ also commented on the anecdotal evidence of the lack of use of the provisions of subsection 2, schedule 31 of the CA, due to the lack of enforceability.
Some law was cited:-
‘Will it be better for the child to make the order than no order at all’ (Re G (Children [2006] 1 FLR 771
‘There must be something in the making or operation of an order which makes it better for the children for an order to be made’ (Re K ( Supervision Orders0 1999 2 FLR 303)
‘An order should not be made unless there is evidence establishing that the order will lead to an improvement from the point of view of the child’s welfare’ (Re X & Y [2001] 2 FLR 118
‘There must be some tangible benefit to the child(ren) from making the order rather than leaving the parents to sort things out for themselves’ (Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond Upon Thames London BC [2009 UKHL 7])
‘The court should make the least intrusive order necessary’
‘The burden of proof (balance of probabilities) for an order to be made, rests on the LA’
The DJ concluded:
In this case an SO does not add anything over and above a child in need plan
If there are issues matters can be escalated (same for an SO as a CIN plan)
An SO’s focus is with the child2, the issue on this case is working with the mother
Final words
Whether the mother’s needs would be focussed on more under a child in need plan, I cannot say, and there will be many people reading this that have had that experience and it may vary from LA to LA and from SW to SW.
S 35, puts the duty on the supervisor to ‘advise assist and befriend the supervised child’, not the mother or parent. Supervised child rather than mother was stressed in para 38 of the judgement.
Obiter, I suppose, the DJ considered that when SO’s are made they should be accompanied by a tailored plan.