Y (A Child), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from care and placement orders made in relation to twin children aged 16 months. The mother appeals against these orders. The local authority and the Children's Guardian concede the appeal except on one ground. The case involves concerns about the threshold criteria for statutory intervention and the adequacy of evidence presented at first instance. The court noted procedural history including the need for reconsideration by a Family Division Liaison Judge and the involvement of multiple judges in the appellate process.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge was correct to find that the threshold criteria for statutory intervention were met.
2. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the care and placement orders, including proper identification and evaluation of risk to the children.
3. The appropriate procedural direction for the re-hearing of the case and allocation of a suitable judge.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent local authority and Children's Guardian concede the appeal except on Ground 1, which challenges the threshold criteria finding.
• They rely on recent case law, including Re B-S (Children), to support their position on threshold criteria.

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant mother concedes that Ground 1 cannot be sustained, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Re B (A Child).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the judge at first instance was entitled to find that the threshold criteria for intervention were met. However, the court found fault in the inadequate identification and evaluation of the risks to the children, which is essential for determining the proportionality of care orders. The court criticised the lack of relevant evidence, particularly from the local authority, and noted that evidence should not be limited to that supporting the authority's preferred outcome. The court also expressed concern that the case had been unduly dominated by the issue of the mother's dishonesty without sufficient contextual analysis of how this impacted the children’s welfare. Consequently, the court held that the existing evidence was insufficient for a proper adjudication and ordered a re-hearing before a new judge appointed by the Family Division Liaison Judge for the Western Circuit. The court emphasized that the previous parent-child relationship, though interrupted, was not irreparable, and cautioned parties not to treat the appeal outcome as determinative of the re-hearing.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL in part but remitted the case for a fresh hearing before a newly allocated Family Division judge. The appeal was disposed of by agreement of counsel with directions for the re-hearing and consideration of the appropriate venue. The court ordered that the matter be reconsidered urgently with the involvement of the Family Division Liaison Judge for the Western Circuit. The decision does not set new precedent but underscores the necessity of adequate evidential foundations and rigorous risk assessment in care proceedings. The mother’s relationship with the children remains capable of restoration, and the outcome of the re-hearing is not predetermined by this appeal decision.