Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns five children—four girls aged 9 to 13 and one boy aged 8—who have been known to social services for over a decade. Earlier care proceedings in 2019 addressed allegations of the father's physical chastisement and parental failure to protect and engage with professionals. No orders were made then, but parents were urged to attend a parenting course.
In 2024, concerns resurfaced after the eldest child went missing multiple times and alleged physical abuse by the father. The parents refused to engage with the local authority, and police took no action following investigation. A violent incident involving the eldest child was recorded and presented in court, with allegations that the parents encouraged the aggression and failed to intervene.
The local authority applied for care orders in May 2024, initially seeking removal of the children, but agreed with the parents that the children remain at home under a safety plan excluding the father from the family home and supervising his contact. The parents did not sign the plan and allegedly breached its terms, including the father attending unsupervised visits.
Further concerns arose regarding the eldest child's wellbeing, including expulsion from school and a suicide attempt, alongside evidence of bullying. The parents obstructed social work assessments by failing to engage. Despite this, the local authority initially recommended that the children remain at home under care orders, noting positive attachments to the mother.
The final hearing began in March 2025 but was adjourned after the local authority changed its care plan to seek removal of the children, prompted by the mother's refusal to cooperate with social workers. The parents breached interim arrangements by taking the children away without notification.
When the hearing resumed in April 2025, the local authority sought care orders with removal plans for the children, except two siblings recommended by the guardian to remain at home. The parents opposed the care plans, denying the statutory threshold for care orders was met.
The judge made final care orders in May 2025, concluding that although the parents were uncooperative and posed risks, removal of the children would be disproportionate. The judge ordered that the children remain at home under care orders with shared parental responsibility with the local authority and regulated contact with the father. Ancillary orders included an injunction excluding the father from the family home and its vicinity.
Both the local authority and the father sought permission to appeal the care plans and injunction, with the local authority granted permission on two grounds. The father’s application for permission to appeal the injunction was refused initially but later granted on appeal.
Subsequent hearings revealed ongoing parental non-engagement and alleged breaches of the injunction. The local authority extended the injunction pending appeal outcomes and did not pursue removal of the children.
The court ultimately identified a procedural error in making final care orders without a compliant care plan in place, leading to the allowance of the appeal by consent, substitution of interim care orders, and remittal for rehearing before another judge.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge lawfully made final care orders without the local authority having submitted a section 31A plan reflecting the court’s welfare decision.
- Whether it was appropriate to make care orders placing the children at home given the risks and the exceptional nature required by precedent.
- Whether the injunction excluding the father from the family home was necessary and proportionate and correctly made under the inherent jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Re JW (Child at home under care order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944 |
Exceptional nature of making care orders where children remain living at home; such orders should be rare and require careful analysis. |
The court emphasized that the judge erred in making final care orders without a compliant plan, especially given the exceptional circumstances of children remaining at home under care orders. |
| Re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); Re W (Minors) (Care Order: Adequacy of Care Plan) [2002] UKHL 10 |
Distinction between court’s role in making care orders and local authority’s role in determining care plans. |
Supported the principle that local authority and court have separate responsibilities, and where views diverge, a process of mutual reconsideration is required before final orders. |
| Re W (Care Proceedings: Function of Court and Local Authority) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 |
Clarification of roles of court and local authority in care proceedings and care plan formulation. |
Reinforced need for local authority to consider and respond to court’s welfare findings prior to final care orders. |
| Re T (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court's Function) [2018] EWCA Civ 650 |
Function of the court in care proceedings and interaction with local authority care plans. |
Used to illustrate the necessity of cooperation and reconsideration when court and local authority diverge on care plans. |
| Re T-S (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 742 |
Emphasizes the separate spheres of responsibility and the process to resolve disagreements between court and local authority. |
Quoted extensively to explain the need for mutual respect, reconsideration, and potential judicial review if impasse remains. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court identified a fundamental procedural error: the judge made final care orders without having before her a section 31A plan that reflected the decision to keep the children at home. The original care plans had been withdrawn, and the local authority had proposed removal plans which were not formally before the court. This procedural deficiency rendered the final care orders unlawful.
The court stressed the rarity and exceptional nature of care orders permitting children to remain at home, requiring particularly careful scrutiny and appropriate planning. Given the parents’ persistent refusal to cooperate, the local authority must be given the opportunity to formulate a feasible care plan aligned with the judge’s welfare findings and for the guardian to respond accordingly.
The court also examined the injunction excluding the father from the family home. It found a statutory error in granting leave and making the injunction under the court’s inherent jurisdiction where a statutory mechanism under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was available. The injunction was therefore discharged and replaced by an exclusion requirement under section 38A of the Children Act 1989.
The court declined to address the substantive merits of the parties’ grounds of appeal, as the procedural flaw rendered such discussion unnecessary. Instead, it focused on ensuring the correct legal process is followed on rehearing.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED the local authority's appeal against the final care orders and set those orders aside. The matter was remitted for a full rehearing before a different judge, with interim care orders placed on the children until the conclusion of proceedings or further order.
The father's application for permission to appeal the injunction was granted, the injunction made under the inherent jurisdiction was discharged, and replaced with an exclusion requirement under the Children Act 1989 on the same terms.
The direct effect is that the care proceedings will be reheard with proper procedural compliance, allowing the local authority to submit care plans consistent with the court’s welfare findings and enabling the guardian to respond. No new substantive precedent was established beyond reinforcing the procedural requirements for final care orders and injunctions in such circumstances.