Sarah Buxton and Beth Armitage recently appeared in the case of A County Council v PS & Anor [2026] EWFC 68, a care case listed for a final hearing over four days involving the application by the Local Authority (represented by Ms Buxton) to place the child ‘CS’ (who was in foster care) away from his mother’s care (the mother represented by Ms Armitage).
This case involved lengthy cross-examination of various professionals involved in the case primarily on the issue of placement, both whether CS could be placed in his mother’s care and fundamentally whether, in the alternative, he should be placed with his maternal grandmother – something that was strongly opposed by the mother given the allegations the mother raised against her.
The case involved a background of previous proceedings involving the mother’s older child who was removed and placed with her father, the court commented that the concerns echoed that of the previous proceedings and included concerns of: ‘mother’s poor home conditions, her poor mental health, violent outbursts, complaints from neighbours of screaming and shouting, and risk of eviction’.
The court acknowledged the work the mother was seeking to undertake and the improvements she told the court she was making to address the concerns raised. The court however concluded that the mother ‘has suffered a great deal of trauma… which now requires work. Given the minimal engagement with mental health services over a period of many years…there seems little doubt that the mother has long-standing and unmet needs. In turn, the child would be at risk of emotional harm in her care, not least from his exposure to the conflicts and physical altercations that seem to surround the mother and her interactions with friends and family.’
One of the primary discussions in the court’s judgment was the alternative issue of placement, the mother having made serious concerning allegations against the maternal grandmother and relying upon this as her basis for opposing the proposed placement which was supported by the professionals in the case. There had been a previous decision not to embark upon a fact finding hearing on those issues. The court concluded that it could place weight on the assessments of the professionals in the case having considered the evidence before it, including the cross-examination of the social worker who assessed the grandmother, the court further concluded that finalising under a Care Order would enable ongoing scrutiny and professional oversight.
This case was a clear example of why it is necessary to ensure adequate time estimates are provided for final hearings (it having been mooted at an earlier hearing that the matter could be dealt with in lesser time) in light of a parent’s vulnerabilities. The mother in this case had a range of vulnerabilities including being both neurodiverse and struggling with complex, longstanding mental health needs, as a result; participation directions were agreed and implemented for the duration of the hearing. This case is a prime example of where both the court and advocates worked collectively to ensure that the participation directions were not only complied with but were kept under active review throughout the hearing. It is also an example of a case where the importance of a parent feeling heard and having the opportunity to give oral evidence cannot be underestimated with the court commenting that ‘In the end, however, the mother was very clear that she wished to give evidence and I got the clear sense she felt a duty to do so for her son.’
