Courts Removes Child from Parent with learning difficulties

By Iblal IqbalPublished 14 February 2020Updated 5 September 202612 mins read7 sections

Part of: Section 47 Report Explained: What Happens During Section 47 Enquiries?

It is quite unfortunate when a child is removed from a parent. This is often the case when the Local Authority makes an application for a care order. A court can only make a care order where it is satisfied that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable either to the care given (or likely to be given) to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give, or to the child being beyond parental control.

The courts can therefore remove a child from parent where there is a concern regarding the safety and welfare of a child. A disability, learning difficulty or housing problem is not, on its own, a reason to remove a child. The question is always whether the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm because the care given falls below what it would be reasonable to expect — and whether that risk could be managed with the right support in place.

This page describes the law of England and Wales.

When the court removes child from parent with learning difficulties

It can often be difficult for one parent to separate from their child. However, what can be more difficult is if the courts remove a child from their parents and orders a child is to be adopted despite both parents being together.

This is exactly what happened in the case of Lancashire County Council v C (injured baby; adoption) [2017] EWFC B91. This case concerned the local authority’s application for care and placement orders for a baby. The background to this case was that the child was six weeks old when he was taken to hospital and was found to have two fractures to the arm and a fractured skull. The baby lived at home with his mother, his father and the maternal grandparents.

The issues before the court are the cause of the injuries and the future safe arrangements for the child. The local authority holds the baby’s family at blame for the injuries decides to remove a child from their parents. The children’s guardian supports this argument. The family attribute the injuries to hospital doctors or hospital treatment and seek the return of the child to their home.

Local authority must prove their allegations on the balance of probabilities

The judge stated from the outset that the burden of proof is on the local authority. The local authority must prove their allegations on the balance of probabilities and proof must be based on evidence and proper inferences from evidence. The parents need not explain anything. It must not be based on suspicion or speculation.

The judge made it clear that it was their task to consider all the evidence and to consider each piece in the context of all the other evidence. The judge also confirmed that this approach is also applicable to the medical evidence and they will make a final decision after considering the medical evidence alongside all the other evidence. In practice, the quality and balance of expert evidence can make or break a case where a parent with learning difficulties faces losing a child. Courts expect assessments of parents with learning difficulties to be fair and accessible, and to consider what support would allow a child to remain safely at home. Our team regularly works with independent experts, from learning‑disability specialists to independent social workers, to ensure assessments are fair, accessible and focused on what support would allow a child to remain safely at home, rather than treating removal and adoption as the default answer.

Judge to examine the credibility and reliability of the parents and the grandparents

The judge made it clear that the evidence of the parents and grandparents is of utmost importance and their task is to assess their credibility and reliability. According to the judge “experience indicates that it is common for witnesses to lie in circumstances like this, not just in the investigation process but during the hearing itself. I reflect that a witness might lie for many reasons including shame or loyalty or fear. The fact that they lie about one thing does not mean that they have lied about everything and certainly does not necessarily mean that they are responsible for injuring the child”.

The judge made it clear that fractures need force. It is therefore important to find out where the force came from given that the baby in the case was immobile, therefore the court should identify the person or persons who are responsible. “In the circumstances the court must identify all those of whom it can be said that there is a real possibility that they are a perpetrator”.

Courts consider the parents disabilities

The judge noted the father has a learning disability with traits of autism. The consequence is that he has difficulty understanding. The mother is described as in the low average range of ability, which places her rather higher than the father. However, she has a problem understanding verbal communication which is linked to her autistic spectrum condition. In the past she has had treatment for ADHD. As a result of this both parents struggled to follow the court proceedings. The judge has acted on professional advice as to how to assist both parents with best contributing to the hearing.

In considering the credibility and reliability of the grandparents the court noted that they have cared for many children and they have a good C.V. in relation to childcare. There is nothing in the busy home or background of the grandparents that suggest the baby should live elsewhere. However, the grandparents have taken a negative approach to professionals since an older child suffered sexual abuse in the community and they felt they did not receive the professionals help which they needed.

Judge concludes the baby’s injuries were caused by the family

Having considered all of the medical evidence the judge reached the conclusion that the fractured skull occurred when the baby was accidentally dropped by one of the four carers (the mother, the father or the grandparents). The person responsible for this knew but concealed what they had done and didn’t seek treatment. The two fractures to the arm were inflicted by the mother or the father in frustration in a momentary loss of control. The family did seek appropriate treatment, but the mother and father concealed the real cause.

The grandparents must have suspected and come to know of the true cause however they have diverted the blame from those responsible. “The family have put forward a manifestly untenable explanation for these injuries, seeking the return of the child to the home and they have thereby failed to protect him from the risk of repetition.”

In considering whether the baby should remain with the grandparents the judge noted “I do not accept that the grandparents can be trusted to keep the parents at arm’s length and to supervise contact. They do not believe that the parents have or are capable of injuring the child. The grandfather in a moment of insight confessed that, whatever the findings of the court, he would always believe that the doctors were to blame, and that responsibility did not lie in the family”.

The judge therefore stated that he believes this is an exceptional case in which the welfare of the child dictates removal from the parents’ care. Nothing but adoption will do. The judge also believed direct contact should be substituted with indirect contact which also extends to the grandparents.

Strategic steps if you are a parent with learning difficulties facing care proceedings

When a parent with learning difficulties is facing the possibility that a court may remove their child, the legal test is not simply whether they find parenting hard, but whether the child can be kept safe with the right package of support in place. Demonstrating that you understand this – and that you are actively engaging with assessments, training and practical help – can be critical in persuading the court that long‑term removal or adoption is not the only realistic option.

Powerful, practical steps often include:

• Insisting on reasonable adjustments: Asking at the outset for information in accessible formats, extra time to process documents, and, where necessary, an intermediary or advocate so you can follow and participate properly in hearings and meetings. This shows the court you want to engage, not that you are “disengaged” or “uncooperative”. Child Protection Resource: care proceedings involving parents with learning difficulties​
• Engaging early with parenting support: Proactively enrolling on parenting or safer‑care courses, accepting in‑home support and keeping written evidence of what you have completed, so you can evidence change rather than only promising future improvement.
• Coordinating your wider legal position: Where your learning difficulty links to other issues – such as social‑care assessments, housing insecurity or disputes about child arrangements and custody – our team can help you build a coherent plan that addresses all of these together. Courts are more confident in returning a child where there is a joined‑up strategy rather than a series of last‑minute, isolated promises.
• Challenging outdated assumptions: Too often, parents with learning disabilities are judged on diagnosis rather than on current functioning with support. Carefully‑chosen expert reports, up‑to‑date cognitive and parenting assessments, and evidence from professionals who see you day‑to‑day can all help the court focus on what you can do now, not only on historic difficulties.​

Clear evidence of engagement, realistic support requests and a workable plan for safe care all help the court consider whether your child can remain at home with support. No outcome can be promised — every case turns on its own facts.

What happens after the court removes child from parent?

When the court removes child from parent, it is never treated as a routine or administrative step – it is one of the most serious interventions the family court can make. Judges must be satisfied that the legal threshold for significant harm is met, that there is no realistic package of support which would allow the child to remain safely at home, and that removal is a proportionate response to the risks identified rather than a reaction to disability or poverty alone. This is especially important in cases involving parents with learning difficulties, where the real question should be whether the parent can safely care with properly tailored support, not whether a diagnosis on its own justifies permanent separation

What to do if a child has been removed from a parent?

When the court removes child from parent, the story does not necessarily end with final care and placement orders. Over time, parents can apply to discharge a care order, increase contact or explore alternatives such as special guardianship within the wider family if their circumstances change significantly. The strongest applications usually combine independent evidence of progress (treatment completed, stable housing, support networks in place) with a realistic care plan and, where appropriate, input from our child specialists to show how safe reunification or extended family care could work day‑to‑day. The position is different once a placement order has been made or an adoption order granted — the applications available, and the tests that apply, change at each stage, so it is important to get advice on where your case currently stands

If you are a parent whose child has been removed from your care, you can consider making an application to discharge the existing care order in place. In order to do so you must satisfy the family court that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. You can show this by proving to the courts that you are now able to adequately and safely maintain your child. This could be by proving you have addressed your alcohol or drug misuse issues or you are now able to provide a more suitable accommodation for your child if it was for these reasons that the court removed your child from your care. You could also consider participating in parenting courses which would be beneficial in showing that you are engaging with the relevant professionals to resolve any issues.

Importance of getting legal advice before a child is removed from a parent

Parents with learning difficulties or disabilities often face multiple agencies and overlapping legal processes at once – care proceedings about their child, community‑care assessments about their own support, and sometimes parallel disputes about housing or finances. Our specialists are used to working at that intersection: helping secure reasonable adjustments in court (such as intermediaries or simplified documents), coordinating with adult‑social‑care teams about practical support, and making sure that any parenting assessments or care orders genuinely reflect what a parent can do with the right help rather than treating a diagnosis as a foregone conclusion. If a local authority starts care proceedings about your child, legal aid is normally available to parents for those proceedings regardless of income.

If you feel there may be concerns regarding your ability to care for your children, you should seek legal advice from the outset. Quite often family advisors may be able to assist you with trying to obtain the help and support you need to try and avoid your child being taken away from you. Family lawyers can also assist you in communicating with the Local Authorities and the court to try and ascertain the reasons for removing your child and challenge these. If your child has already been removed from your care then contact our family specialists who can advice you on how you can look to resolve your issues and attempt to work towards your child returning to your care.

Many families in this situation are also dealing with linked private‑law disputes – for example, disagreements about where siblings should live, shared custody arrangements between parents during separation. Our approach is to build a single, coherent plan that joins up your public‑law care case with any ongoing child arrangements or special guardianship issues, so the court can see a stable long‑term structure for your child’s life rather than a series of disconnected crises.

Should you have any questions or concerns in relation to any child matter you can contact our offices to arrange a free initial consultation. Contact our family lawyers in Fulham or nationally today on 0330 094 5880 or let us call you back.