W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 (11 October 2013)

W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 (11 October 2013)

The judge erred in making a care order based on a care plan she did not agree with and which was opposed by both the local authority and mother. The court's evaluation of risk must be based on evidence, but the order must be proportionate and reflect the statutory preference for less interventionist measures. The care order was not justified given the circumstances and the disagreement between the judge and the local authority regarding risk and care plan adequacy.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1227
Parties
Appellant Mother: RW; First Respondent Local Authority: Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council; Second Respondent Father: MH; Third Respondent Child: W (A Child) (by her Children's Guardian); Fourth Respondent Paternal Grandparents: CH and SH; Fifth Respondent Maternal Grandfather: AW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Care Order Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; care order set aside
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Parental Responsibility, Threshold Criteria, Section 31 Children Act 1989, Section 31 a Care Plan, Welfare Principle, Proportionality, ECHR Article 8
Family Law Child Protection Public Law Care Orders Supervision Orders Parental Responsibility Threshold Criteria Section 31 Children Act 1989 +4 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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RW

Appellant Mother

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

First Respondent Local Authority

MH

Second Respondent Father

W (A Child) (by her Children's Guardian)

Third Respondent Child

CH and SH

Fourth Respondent Paternal Grandparents

AW

Fifth Respondent Maternal Grandfather

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Care Order Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was wrong to make a care order based on a care plan she did not agree with and opposed by both the local authority and mother
  2. 2 Whether the judge's evaluation of risk and mother's capability was correct
  3. 3 Whether the care order was a disproportionate interference with ECHR Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in making a care order based on a care plan she did not agree with and which was opposed by both the local authority and mother. The court's evaluation of risk must be based on evidence, but the order must be proportionate and reflect the statutory preference for less interventionist measures. The care order was not justified given the circumstances and the disagreement between the judge and the local authority regarding risk and care plan adequacy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; care order set aside

Orders

  • Care order in respect of W set aside
  • Case remitted for reconsideration of appropriate order (including supervision order)