A family court recorder has apologised to all sides after care proceedings for a teenage girl took more than double the statutory target.
The final hearing in the case of Care Proceedings (wishes and feelings of a child aged 14) took place last month, 16 months after proceedings commenced and well outside the timeframe for public law proceedings of 26 weeks.
Recorder Cooper said part of the delay was unavoidable due to a change of guardian which held progress back by a few months. But the listing was also made in December 2024 and a court date could not be found for some six months.
Cooper said: ‘That listing delay is in my judgement to be deplored and is a sad indictment of the difficulties listing even the most serious and sensitive cases involving children and young people who are clearly well aware of the decisions that are being taken about them.
‘I can only apologise on behalf of the courts to the parties involved, particular to [the girl], for the no doubt extra stress that this has caused all of them.’
The recorder said it was clearly unhelpful for the girl who wanted to understand where she would be living and was entitled to have that certainty.
Although the length of the proceedings warranted the recorder’s criticism, the delay ran counter to the recent trend of decreasing wait times for care or supervision.
Ministry of Justice figures for the final quarter of 2024 showed that the time for cases to reach first disposal averaged 38 weeks, down three weeks on the same quarter in 2023. The system disposed of 37% of cases within 26 weeks – up three percentage points compared with the same period in 2023.
In the ruling itself, the court heard that the child had lived with the same foster carers since January 2024 under an interim care order. The local authority, guardian and her father wished for her to remain with the foster carers, whilst the mother and child supported her living with the mother.
Cooper ruled that the child should remain subject to a care order and should not return to her mother. She made clear that the mother was clearly a loving parent but serious welfare concerns were raised by her mental health. The judge ordered for further and improved direct contact with the mother, to be a reviewed within two months.
In a letter to the girl, published as part of the judgment, the recorder said: ‘I think you might be upset with my decision and I am sorry about this but the most important thing is that you are safe and being well looked after. I do realise that this order is not the one that you said you wanted me to make, but I am confident that it is the right order for you in the long run.’
