Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a local authority's challenge to a judge's refusal to make a care order concerning a young child, referred to as H, who is nearly two years old. The mother has a history of abusive relationships resulting in the removal and adoption of her four older children due to her failure to protect them from emotional harm. Between 2020 and 2023, the mother was involved in multiple abusive relationships, including with the child's father, who physically assaulted her on several occasions, including while she was pregnant with H.
After H's birth in July 2023, the local authority promptly sought a care order, and H was placed in foster care under an interim care order. Various assessments and placements followed, including residential assessment and mother-and-baby foster placements. Despite some positive reports, concerns persisted about the mother's ability to remain separated from the father, who continued to assault her. The mother and H moved to a confidential address, but the father maintained contact with the mother without the local authority's knowledge.
Following a violent incident in December 2023, H was placed with foster carers Mr and Mrs N, who wished to be considered as long-term carers. The local authority filed applications for care and placement orders with a plan for adoption by the foster carers. The parents opposed these orders, and a final hearing was scheduled.
During the proceedings, the mother made some positive changes, including supporting the prosecution of the father, who was sentenced to prison. The foster carers expressed a preference for adoption or special guardianship. The local authority amended its care plan to seek a care order with a view to adoption but no longer sought a placement order within the current proceedings.
The judge, after hearing evidence and submissions, concluded that the child should be returned to the mother's care under a supervision order, rejecting adoption as unnecessary. The local authority was refused permission to appeal initially but later obtained permission, leading to this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge properly considered and balanced the risks to the child if returned to the mother's care, particularly in light of the mother's history of abusive relationships and the evidence of recent improvements.
- Whether the judge failed to adequately apply the statutory welfare checklist and provide sufficient reasoning for his conclusions regarding risk and the appropriateness of care or supervision orders.
- Whether the judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the position and interests of the foster carers, including the impact of removing the child from their care.
- Whether the judge's evaluation of evidence and risk was sufficiently detailed to justify the decision to return the child to the mother rather than pursue adoption.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Local Authority)
- The judge failed to adequately consider the risks to the child if returned to the mother, giving disproportionate weight to recent positive steps without properly contextualising them against the mother's long history of abusive relationships and failures to protect her children.
- The judge did not sufficiently explain how the risks could be managed or mitigated if the child was returned to the mother’s care.
- The judge failed to carry out a full balancing exercise, including a proper assessment of the statutory welfare checklist and the protective factors in place.
- The judge overlooked the emotional harm to the child from removal from the current foster carers and gave insufficient weight to the carers' expressed intention to seek adoption.
- The judge gave inadequate reasons for departing from the assessments and recommendations of the allocated social worker and the children's guardian.
Respondent's Arguments (Mother)
- The mother had made significant, positive, and substantial changes since the start of the final hearing, including supporting the prosecution of the father and engaging consistently with support services.
- The judge's reasons, while relatively brief, were sufficient and demonstrated awareness of the mother's history and the evidence before him.
- The schedule of agreed facts showed improvements directly related to risk, supporting the conclusion that the mother had developed the necessary insight and resilience.
- The mother’s engagement with support services and stable mental health indicated a reduced risk that justified returning the child to her care.
- The local authority and guardian did not seek further clarification of the judge’s reasons, which would have been the appropriate step prior to appeal.
Respondent's Arguments (Father)
- The father supported the mother's position that the child should be returned to her care.
- The agreed facts demonstrated a significant shift in the mother's insight and a reduction in risk by the date of decision.
- The trial judge was best placed to assess the evidence and make factual findings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Re ADA (Children: Care and Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 743 |
Legal principles governing care and placement orders, including threshold criteria under s.31 Children Act 1989. |
The judge relied on paragraph 40 of this judgment for legal principles and threshold criteria. |
| Re D (A Child: Placement Order) [2022] EWCA Civ 896 |
Framework for evaluating family placement and assessing risk of harm to the child. |
Referred to for the court’s duty to evaluate risk, harm, and mitigation possibilities; cited in the judge’s reasoning and appellate analysis. |
| Re K (Children) (Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 1503 |
Guidance on placement orders and welfare considerations. |
Cited as part of legal principles governing care and placement orders. |
| Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 |
Proportionality in care and placement order decisions. |
Referenced in the legal framework for assessing care plans. |
| Re B (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407 |
Standards for judicial reasoning in family cases. |
Used to assess the adequacy of the judge’s reasons in the present case. |
| Re LRP (Care Proceedings: Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 |
Observations on long-term foster care as a legal framework. |
Quoted by the judge on the precariousness of long-term fostering compared to adoption. |
| Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558 |
Requirement for a judge to consider evidence in context. |
Cited to emphasize the need for holistic evidence evaluation, which was found lacking in this case. |
| Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 |
Appellate court’s approach to findings of fact and reasoning. |
Referenced regarding the requirement for judges to give sufficient reasons for decisions. |
| English v Emery Reimbold & Strick [2002] EWCA Civ 605 |
Procedure for seeking clarification of judicial reasons before appeal. |
Mentioned in submissions about the proper approach to inadequate reasons. |
| Re YM (Care Proceedings)(Clarification of Reasons) [2024] EWCA Civ 71 |
Guidance on when to seek clarification of reasons versus appealing. |
Discussed in relation to whether the deficiencies in the judgment could be remedied by clarification. |
| Re O (A Child) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasons) [2021] EWCA Civ 149 |
Standards for adequacy of judicial reasons and when to appeal. |
Used to support the decision that the judgment’s deficiencies warranted appeal rather than clarification. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court of Appeal focused on the judge’s evaluation of risk to the child if returned to the mother’s care. The judge had acknowledged the mother’s history of abusive relationships and failures to protect her children but concluded that recent positive changes demonstrated sufficient resilience and insight to manage future risks. However, the appellate court found the judgment deficient in that it failed to analyse the recent improvements in the context of the mother’s extensive history and did not adequately explain how the risks would be mitigated.
The judge recited the threshold findings under s.31 Children Act 1989 but did not engage with them in his risk assessment or explain why the recent positive factors outweighed the longstanding concerns. The court emphasized the necessity of a holistic analysis incorporating the statutory welfare checklist, including the child’s risk of harm and the ability of relatives to provide a secure environment, none of which was sufficiently addressed.
The appellate court also noted the judge’s misstatement of the guardian’s recommendation and his failure to address the social worker’s evidence regarding ongoing risks. The judge’s brief statement that he had considered all evidence without summarizing or analysing it was insufficient to meet the required standard of reasoned decision-making.
Given these deficiencies, the court held that the judge’s conclusions were unsupported by adequate reasoning, necessitating intervention. The appellate court stressed that this decision did not preclude the same outcome upon proper analysis but mandated a rehearing to ensure a thorough and reasoned evaluation of risks and welfare factors.
Holding and Implications
The Court of Appeal ALLOWED the appeal and REMITTED the case to the Family Presiding Judge for reassignment to a different judge for a fresh hearing.
This decision requires a comprehensive reassessment of the evidence and welfare factors, including a proper balancing of risks and benefits regarding the child’s future care. The court emphasized the necessity of clear and adequate reasoning in family proceedings, particularly when weighing complex issues of risk and parental capacity.
No new precedent was established; rather, the ruling reinforces existing principles about judicial reasoning and the evaluation of risk in care proceedings. The direct effect is that the prior decision refusing the care order and returning the child to the mother’s care is set aside pending a full reconsideration.