F (Children: Placement Orders: Proportionality)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal concerned care and placement orders made in respect of two young daughters. Permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was supported by the father, and it was opposed by the local authority and the Children’s Guardian. The family were Urdu-speaking, born in Pakistan, and their immigration status was precarious. The children had lived with the mother throughout and were described as thriving in her supervised care. [Para 27][Para 28]

The case arose after the mother reported domestic abuse by the father in January 2023, including allegations of assault and strangulation, and the children entered child protection processes. The mother later retracted the abuse allegations, saying she had been coerced by her father in Pakistan, and the parents’ asylum claim was refused while their immigration appeal awaited the outcome of the family proceedings. In March 2025, the younger child presented at hospital with bruising and possible fractures, which led to the children being placed in a residential assessment unit under constant supervision. The local authority then issued care proceedings, interim care orders were made, and the case proceeded through threshold and welfare hearings before final care and placement orders were made in May 2026. [Para 31][Para 32][Para 34][Para 36][Para 39][Para 40][Para 41][Para 42][Para 43][Para 46][Para 47]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the making of care and placement orders was necessary and proportionate, given the time since the last domestic abuse incident, the seriousness and apparent isolation of the younger child’s injuries, the mother’s compliance with professional requirements, and the emotional harm likely to result from separation. [Para 140][Para 141][Para 142][Para 143][Para 158][Para 159]
2. Whether the judge’s welfare analysis was procedurally flawed because it was linear rather than holistic, and whether the final decision was reached by an adequate comparative assessment of the realistic options. [Para 145][Para 146][Para 150][Para 152][Para 153]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Mother’s Arguments

• The orders were said to be neither necessary nor proportionate because the last domestic abuse episode had been more than three years earlier, the younger child’s injuries were not the most serious and appeared isolated, the mother had complied with all professional requirements in the residential placement, and separation would cause emotional harm. [Para 140][Para 141][Para 142][Para 143][Para 158][Para 159]
• The mother also relied on a proposed “external locus of control,” saying that a strong framework, monitoring, domestic abuse work, and awareness of consequences would mitigate risk. [Para 169][Para 170]
• She argued that she had taken steps to separate from the father and should be re-assessed, or else the matter should be adjourned for further assessment. [Para 102]

Respondent Father’s Arguments

• The father supported the mother’s appeal. He argued that a robust safety plan could be devised, including monitoring, domestic abuse work, work on cultural pressures, and clear consequences for breach, and said a care order or supervision order would be sufficient. [Para 170]

Respondent Local Authority’s Arguments

• The local authority said delay was significant, the domestic abuse was serious, the younger child’s injuries were unexplained, and parental denial remained a major concern. [Para 170][Para 172]
• It submitted that the judge was entitled to find a real and immediate risk of future harm, and that adoption was the right plan because the risk could not be managed safely in the mother’s care. [Para 172][Para 173]

Respondent Children’s Guardian’s Arguments

• The Children’s Guardian supported the local authority and argued that the appeal was no more than a disagreement about the weight given to competing factors. [Para 173]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the orthodox appellate restraint in welfare cases: although the judge had broadly identified the relevant issues, interference was justified only if the decision was wrong or the judge had given excessive weight to a factor. [Para 175][Para 176][Para 177]

The court accepted that the underlying findings were serious: the father had perpetrated significant domestic abuse, the younger child had suffered inflicted bruising, both parents had lied extensively, and the family’s dishonesty obstructed child protection assessment. Even so, the court stressed that adoption is an exceptional order and that the analysis must not be diluted by treating ordinary parental shortcomings as enough to justify permanent separation. [Para 160][Para 161][Para 162][Para 163][Para 164][Para 165][Para 178][Para 179][Para 180][Para 181][Para 182][Para 183][Para 184]

The court considered the judge’s process on ground 2, including the complaint that the analysis had become linear. It held that, read as a whole, the two welfare judgments should be treated as a single decision and that there was no serious procedural irregularity causing injustice, although it said it would have been better to have given one final judgment rather than separate staged judgments. [Para 152][Para 153][Para 154][Para 155]

On the substance, the court held that the judge had not fully completed the required necessity and proportionality exercise. The judgments identified the type of risk, but they did not sufficiently examine the realistically likely consequences of future harm or the practical ability of protective measures to reduce that risk. The court said there was also insufficient recognition of the state’s capacity to support the family through supervision, a domestic abuse protection order, and voluntary services. [Para 185][Para 186][Para 187][Para 188][Para 189][Para 203][Para 206][Para 207][Para 210][Para 211][Para 212][Para 213][Para 214][Para 215][Para 222][Para 223][Para 224][Para 225][Para 226][Para 227][Para 228][Para 229]

The court was especially concerned that the analysis of the children’s likely harm if they remained with the mother did not sufficiently balance the certainty of separation harm against the possibility of managed family life. It said the judge acknowledged the harm of removal, but it could not see why that harm was outweighed to the extent necessary to make adoption inevitable. [Para 219][Para 220][Para 221][Para 222][Para 223][Para 224][Para 123][Para 124][Para 125][Para 126]

Accordingly, the court concluded that the welfare assessment was inadequate and that the final decision did not satisfy the strict requirements for severing the children from their family. [Para 225][Para 229]

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed. The care and placement orders were set aside, the interim care orders revived, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court for a final welfare determination. The unappealed threshold findings remained in place and could not be challenged by the parents. [Para 231][Para 232][Para 233]

The broader implication is that adoption requires a rigorous comparative welfare analysis and a careful assessment of whether protective measures could safely support family life. One concurring judge also stressed that, where immigration status may affect the family’s future, liaison between the Family Court and the immigration tribunal should be considered. [Para 225][Para 226][Para 227][Para 228][Para 229][Para 236][Para 237]