JW (Child at home under care order) V [2023] EWCA Civ 944 (04 August 2023)

JW (Child at home under care order) V [2023] EWCA Civ 944 (04 August 2023)

The Court of Appeal held that a care order with the child at home is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary and proportionate for the child's protection. The judge at first instance was aware of and applied the PLWG guidance, but the evidence did not demonstrate that the risks could not be managed under a supervision order with robust support. The judgment failed to specify with sufficient clarity why a care order was necessary over a supervision order, and the statutory and best practice guidance require a high threshold for such intervention. The appeal was allowed and the care orders were set aside.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 944
Parties
Subject Child: JW (Child at Home under Care Order); Appellant's Counsel: Mr Patrick Llewelyn; 1st Respondent's Counsel: Ms Jessica Lee; Children's Guardian's Counsel (written Submissions Only): Ms Catrin John
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Family Court (care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Proportionality, Parental Responsibility, Children Act 1989, Removal of Children, Public Law Working Group Guidance, Threshold Criteria, Statutory Time Limits
Family Law Child Protection Law Public Law Children Proceedings Care Orders Supervision Orders Proportionality Parental Responsibility 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JW (Child at Home under Care Order)

Subject Child

Mr Patrick Llewelyn

Appellant's Counsel

Ms Jessica Lee

1st Respondent's Counsel

Ms Catrin John

Children's Guardian's Counsel (written Submissions Only)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Family Court (care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final care order should be made when the care plan is for the child to remain at home with the parent(s)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in making a care order instead of a supervision order
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should have been extended to allow further evidence of the mother's protective capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that a care order with the child at home is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary and proportionate for the child's protection. The judge at first instance was aware of and applied the PLWG guidance, but the evidence did not demonstrate that the risks could not be managed under a supervision order with robust support. The judgment failed to specify with sufficient clarity why a care order was necessary over a supervision order, and the statutory and best practice guidance require a high threshold for such intervention. The appeal was allowed and the care orders were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Care orders set aside
  • Case remitted for reconsideration of the appropriate order (supervision order or otherwise) in accordance with PLWG guidance and statutory principles