JD & Ors v City & County of Swansea & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 34 (26 January 2011)

JD & Ors v City & County of Swansea & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 34 (26 January 2011)

The judge was plainly wrong to make a final care order at the stage reached, unsupported by expert endorsement of her risk assessment, and without allowing the recommended further work by the risk management expert. The interference with Article 8 rights was not justified as a measure of last resort in the absence of such further assessment. The appeal was allowed, the final care order set aside, and an interim care order substituted with directions for further expert input.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 34
Parties
First Appellant: Mr JD; Second Appellant: Mrs JD; First Respondent: City and County of Swansea; Second Respondent: KD (A Child by her Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Order) / Appeal From Final Care Order to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; final care order set aside; interim care order made; directions for further expert assessment issued.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Risk Assessment, Article 8 ECHR, Expert Evidence, Interim Orders, Threshold Criteria (children Act 1989)
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Orders Risk Assessment Article 8 ECHR Expert Evidence Interim Orders +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr JD

First Appellant

Mrs JD

Second Appellant

City and County of Swansea

First Respondent

KD (A Child by her Children's Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Order) / Appeal From Final Care Order to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was correct to make a final care order at the stage reached in proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment for further expert work
  3. 3 Whether the judge's decision was supported by expert evidence on risk

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was plainly wrong to make a final care order at the stage reached, unsupported by expert endorsement of her risk assessment, and without allowing the recommended further work by the risk management expert. The interference with Article 8 rights was not justified as a measure of last resort in the absence of such further assessment. The appeal was allowed, the final care order set aside, and an interim care order substituted with directions for further expert input.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; final care order set aside; interim care order made; directions for further expert assessment issued.

Orders

  • Local authority to send judgment and supplementary response to Mr Cullen.
  • Mr Cullen to report on whether further work with parents is worthwhile.