W (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1828 (12 December 2012)

W (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1828 (12 December 2012)

The judge was not plainly wrong in concluding that, despite the parents' progress, the risks to S remained too great due to ongoing concerns about honesty, cooperation with professionals, and the history of significant harm to siblings. The professional evidence supported the decision, and the process, though flawed in some respects, did not render the outcome unfair or disproportionate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1828
Parties
Subject: W (A Child); Appellant's Counsel: Ms Samantha King; Respondent's Counsel: Mr Leo Curran; Respondent's Counsel: Ms Carol Davies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement for Adoption, Threshold Criteria, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Fair Trial, Parental Capacity
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement for Adoption Threshold Criteria Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Proportionality +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W (A Child)

Subject

Ms Samantha King

Appellant's Counsel

Mr Leo Curran

Respondent's Counsel

Ms Carol Davies

Respondent's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was plainly wrong to make a care order and placement for adoption order for S
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for intervention was sufficiently met
  3. 3 Whether the process was fair to the parents, including the conduct of the local authority

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was not plainly wrong in concluding that, despite the parents' progress, the risks to S remained too great due to ongoing concerns about honesty, cooperation with professionals, and the history of significant harm to siblings. The professional evidence supported the decision, and the process, though flawed in some respects, did not render the outcome unfair or disproportionate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Care order for S confirmed
  • Placement for adoption order confirmed