Anonymised Summary of the Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

Care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 ("CA 1989") were started in early 2023 in the Family Court in The City concerning three boys: L (age 9), Y (age 5) and N (age 3). By June 2025 the proceedings had been running for around 128 weeks and were listed for an Issues Resolution Hearing ("IRH") before Judge [Shanks]. The bundle of filed documents exceeded 1,700 pages and this was the twelfth hearing in the proceedings.

The Local Authority, supported by the Children's Guardian, urged the judge at the IRH to make final care orders. The Appellant (the father of N and former principal carer of Y) and the Mother opposed making final orders at that stage and sought a listed contested final hearing. After brief oral submissions and without calling evidence, Judge [Shanks] made final care orders for the children. The Appellant (supported by the Mother) appealed to the appellate court. Permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was heard as a matter of expedition, and the appellate court announced that the appeal would be allowed; the final care orders in respect of Y and N were set aside, interim care orders substituted, and the care applications remitted to the Family Court in The City for urgent case management.

The opinion records that no judicial fact-finding trial had occurred; the factual outline is taken from court documents. Key factual points recorded in the papers included: the parents' separation in June 2022; a period in which N lived with the father and L and Y lived with the Mother; safeguarding concerns arising in 2022 about the Mother's home conditions, mental health and substance misuse leading to Police Protection Orders and care proceedings for L and Y; concerns about the father's drug and chronic excessive alcohol use leading to care proceedings in respect of N (initially managed by an interim supervision order rather than removal); consolidation of the proceedings; a period in which, after assessment and with Local Authority support, Y was moved to live with the father in September 2024; an incident in December 2024 when the father was observed to be intoxicated at the children's school and the children were accommodated under section 20 CA 1989 over the Christmas period; treatment and claimed abstinence by the father from March 2025 with some supporting hair strand testing; ongoing special guardianship assessments of family members; and care plans filed shortly before the IRH which proposed long-term family placements for Y and N but included contingency planning for adoption and outstanding checks/assessments (including a sexual-risk focused assessment by Agency A and Agency B checks).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was lawful and procedurally fair for the judge to make final care orders at the IRH in these proceedings (Ground 1).
2. Whether it was appropriate in principle to make full care orders that were described as serving as a prelude to special guardianship orders (the issue of "short term care orders") (Ground 2).
3. Whether the judge's reasoning was adequate in declining to list a final hearing, specifically whether the judge failed to address the welfare checklist (section 1(3) CA 1989), the merits of the father's case to resume care, Article 6 ECHR rights and contact arrangements; and whether excessive weight was placed on delay (Ground 3).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Father) - presented by Attorney [Sullivan]

• The Appellant had a legitimate, triable case that he had become abstinent from alcohol and posed no future risk to the children; he sought to resume care of Y and N.
• The IRH was not an appropriate forum to bring these proceedings to an abrupt conclusion; the Appellant and Mother should have been allowed to test the Local Authority's and Children's Guardian's evidence at a final hearing with oral evidence.
• Article 6 ECHR rights were engaged because the parents were denied a fair opportunity to test evidence; justice was sacrificed to speed.
• The judge should have adjourned or listed a full final hearing rather than making final care orders at the IRH.
• It was wrong in principle to make what were described as 'short term care orders' that would operate as a prelude to special guardianship, relying on Re P-S to argue such a concept is flawed.

Local Authority and Children's Guardian's Arguments - presented by Attorney [Hasson] and Attorney [Proctor]

• They relied on case-management guidance (including that issued by Judge [McFarlane]) and Re J to argue that the court may, in appropriate circumstances, resolve and finally determine s.31 CA 1989 applications at an IRH, provided the necessary evidence is before the court.
• The Local Authority and Children's Guardian contended the judge was entitled to act robustly to resolve long-running proceedings and to make final orders at the IRH; the father's claimed abstinence did not necessarily eliminate future risk given his chronic history.
• They denied the orders made were 'short term' in an improper sense and defended the approach to permanence planning reflected in the care plans.

Mother's Position

• The Mother did not seek to care for the children but opposed the Local Authority's proposed care plans and supported placement of Y and N with the Appellant (the father).
• The Mother contested the proposed contact arrangements as insufficient to preserve meaningful relationships with her children and sought an opportunity to test the Local Authority's plans.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re J (Care Proceedings: Issues Resolution Hearing) [2017] EWCA Civ 398	IRHs can resolve and finally determine s.31 applications in appropriate cases provided the necessary evidence is before the court; emphasises robust case management and procedural fairness.	The court relied on Re J to outline the proper role of an IRH and to stress that final orders at an IRH are permissible only where the "necessary evidence" is before the judge and fairness is preserved.
Re S-W (Care Proceedings: Case Management Hearing) [2015] 2 FLR 136	Principle that a parent has the right to confront important witnesses; final orders at a case management hearing are exceptional and only appropriate in unusual circumstances.	The court cited Re S-W to support the proposition that the Appellant had a right to test the Social Work view about his sobriety and that summary disposal should be exceptional where contested factual issues remain.
Re NL (A child) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam)	Pauffley J's warning that "Justice must never be sacrificed upon the altar of speed" and the engagement of Article 6 rights in care proceedings.	The court invoked this authority to support the point that procedural fairness cannot be overridden by an imperative to progress or conclude cases quickly.
Re P-S (Children)(Care Proceedings: Special Guardianship Orders) [2018] EWCA Civ 1407	Criticism of the concept of a "short term care order" intended to operate as a prelude to special guardianship: no mechanism exists to limit a full care order in time; concerns about practical consequences for proposed special guardians.	The court recorded this authority as central to Ground 2 arguments and observed the similarity between the present case and issues discussed in Re P-S; the court did not make a concluded ruling on the point but noted its relevance.
A County Council v DP, RS, BS (By their Children's Guardian) [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam)	One key consideration in case management is the relevance of the potential result of an investigation to future care plans for the child.	The court cited this case to support the proposition that the likely impact of further investigation on future plans is important when deciding whether to resolve a case summarily or to adjourn for further inquiry.
Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146	Judgment should evaluate future options for the child "to the degree of detail necessary".	The court relied on this authority in identifying what a judge should address when making final decisions at an IRH and in criticising the brevity of the IRH judgment under review.
Re T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93	Risk assessment should consider (a) likelihood of risk arising, (b) consequences for the child if it did, and (c) how risks may be managed or mitigated.	The court used Re T to explain what the judge should have considered when assessing future risk posed by the Appellant's past alcohol misuse and claimed sobriety.
Re B (Child: Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407	The need for structure and adequate reasoning in judgments, including ex tempore judgments, so that parties understand how decisions were reached.	The court relied on this authority to criticise the lack of adequate, structured reasoning in the IRH judgment and to describe the minimum content expected where proceedings end at an IRH.
Re B (Minors)(Contact) [1994] 2 FLR 1	General proposition recognising judicial discretion over where an application sits on a spectrum of procedural responses.	The court cited this older authority in support of the principle that judges have a spectrum of procedural choices and must exercise discretion in case management.
Re N (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1563	Support for the existence of a spectrum of procedural options and judicial discretion in family case management.	Referenced alongside other authorities to confirm the breadth of judicial discretion in deciding whether to resolve matters summarily or to adjourn for further inquiry.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court undertook a structured analysis of the IRH decision and the procedural context, grounded in the Public Law Outline and authorities concerning the role of the IRH, procedural fairness and the content of judgments.

Key elements of the court's reasoning included:

1. The IRH is a significant case-management stage under the PLO. The IRH may, in appropriate cases, be used to determine final issues, but only if the necessary evidence is before the court and procedural fairness is respected. The court drew on Re J and guidance from Judge [McFarlane] to restate that IRHs must be effective but also that adjournment or further evidence filing is only justified if necessary to determine remaining relevant issues.
2. Procedural failings at the advocates meeting and at the IRH undermined the fairness of a summary decision. The advocates' meeting was described in the papers as largely unproductive (the Mother's advocate lacked instructions, the Father's advocate had been unable to attend, and the Children's Guardian's final analysis was not available). The Local Authority had filed a position statement indicating a final hearing was required; the change at the doorstep to seek final orders at the IRH was therefore an unexpected shift that disadvantaged the parents.
3. There was a material factual issue to try: whether the Appellant had achieved and maintained sobriety and thus removed or materially reduced future risk. The Appellant had filed evidence (including professional statements and hair strand testing) asserting sustained abstinence from early March 2025. The Local Authority and Children's Guardian disagreed. The court held that the Appellant had a right to test the Social Work view (the right to confront those whose evidence is relied upon), particularly because a vindication of the Appellant's sobriety "may have a significant impact on the outcome" (drawing on Re S-W).
4. The judge's oral judgment contained a material error of fact: the judge stated that N's period in the Appellant's care had been "short-lived" and suggested N had only lived with the father for three months in autumn 2024, whereas the papers showed N had been cared for by the Appellant for over two and a half years (June 2022 to December 2024). The appellate court held that this misunderstanding was sufficiently serious to undermine the judge's conclusion, at least in relation to N.
5. The judgment at the IRH lacked adequate reasoning on key welfare considerations. The judge made only passing references to the welfare checklist and did not identify or analyse its constituent elements (section 1(3) CA 1989). The court emphasised that where an IRH is used to conclude proceedings, even an ex tempore judgment must explain why the IRH sufficed as a final hearing, address threshold criteria (section 31(2) CA 1989), discuss the balance of future options with appropriate detail, set out permanence planning (section 31A), and consider contact provisions (section 34(11)).
6. Relevant evidence necessary to decide permanence and contact was incomplete at the IRH. The final assessment addressing sexual risk in relation to the Paternal Grandmother's Partner had not yet been filed (scheduled after the IRH) and Agency B checks (DBS) for the proposed carers for Y had not been returned. The Children's Guardian had withheld full support pending those checks. The court emphasised that it was unfair to finalise plans before this material evidence was available.
7. The judge placed disproportionate emphasis on delay. While the delay (over four times the statutory 26-week period) was a serious and legitimate concern, the appellate court held that the judge allowed this factor to dominate to the detriment of other welfare considerations and procedural fairness, contrary to the obligation to balance efficiency with justice (citing Re NL and Re J).
8. On the basis of the above, the appellate court concluded that the IRH decision to make final care orders in respect of Y and N was procedurally unfair and legally flawed. The court therefore allowed the appeal, discharged the final care orders for Y and N, substituted interim care orders, and remitted the matter to the Family Court in The City for urgent case management directions.
9. The appellate court also considered a material post-IRH development: the unexpected death of the Paternal Grandmother, which affected the approved care plan for N and potentially brought contingency plans (including adoption) into play. This development was considered under the Civil Procedure Rules provision referenced in the judgment and was relevant to the remitted case management.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appellate court allowed the appeal. In particular:

• The final care orders in respect of Y and N were set aside.
• Interim care orders were substituted pending further proceedings.
• The care applications were remitted to the Family Court in The City for urgent case management on 24 October 2025.

Implications:

• The direct consequence is restoration of interim status for Y and N and re-opening of case management in the Family Court for timely, focused progression towards a short, evidence-limited final hearing (or other appropriate resolution) addressing future risk, the outcome of outstanding special guardianship assessments, and contact arrangements.
• The appellate court emphasised that the ruling did not endorse any particular long-term outcome for the Appellant; the Appellant's ambition to care for the children remains subject to careful examination at a future final hearing on up-to-date evidence.
• The decision serves as a reminder of the obligations on first-instance judges when using IRHs to conclude contested proceedings: necessary evidence must be before the court, the welfare checklist and permanence/contact issues must be addressed, factual mistakes must be avoided, and justice must not be sacrificed to expedition. The court did not purport to establish new judicial precedent beyond applying and clarifying existing authorities; the outcome represents an application of established principles to the particular facts of this case.

---

Panel: Judge [Cobb] (author of the leading judgment), Judge [Phillips] and Judge [Green] (agreeing).