F (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 258 (31 January 2011)

F (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 258 (31 January 2011)

The appeal was dismissed because binding precedent requires that the threshold for a care order under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 cannot be crossed solely on the basis that a parent is in a pool of possible perpetrators of harm to another child; there must be proven facts establishing a real possibility of future harm to the child in question.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 258
Parties
Appellant Local Authority: Cheshire East Borough Council; Respondent Mother: Mother of C; Respondent Father: Father of C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Supreme Court After Dismissal of Care Order Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Threshold Criteria, Standard of Proof, Likelihood of Harm, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Threshold Criteria Standard of Proof Likelihood of Harm Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheshire East Borough Council

Appellant Local Authority

Mother of C

Respondent Mother

Father of C

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Supreme Court After Dismissal of Care Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings that a parent is in a pool of possible perpetrators of non-accidental injury to a previous child can satisfy the threshold for a care order for a subsequent child under s.31(2) Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the current legal principle requiring proven factual foundation for likelihood of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because binding precedent requires that the threshold for a care order under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 cannot be crossed solely on the basis that a parent is in a pool of possible perpetrators of harm to another child; there must be proven facts establishing a real possibility of future harm to the child in question.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused