E, Re (A Child - Application to Discharge Care Order - Failures of the Local Authority)(Rev1) [2025] EWFC 223 (B) (26 June 2025)

E, Re (A Child - Application to Discharge Care Order - Failures of the Local Authority)(Rev1) [2025] EWFC 223 (B) (26 June 2025)

The Care Order should remain in force because, despite Emi's return home and progress, there remain unresolved risks relating to the father's ongoing threat, the mother's ambivalence to those risks, and the need for continued oversight, support, and safeguarding by the local authority. The failures of the local authority in implementing the care plan do not justify discharge, as Emi's welfare and safety require the continued protection and services available only under a Care Order. Discharge would risk loss of essential support and monitoring, and is not in Emi's best interests.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 223 (B)
Parties
Applicant (child): Emi; Respondent (mother): Emi's Mother; Respondent (father): Emi's Father; Respondent (local Authority): West Sussex County Council; Guardian: Theresa Seale
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Application to Discharge Care Order / Final Judgment on Application to Discharge Care Order
Outcome
Application to discharge Care Order refused; Care Order to remain in force.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Discharge of Care Orders, Welfare of the Child, Care Planning, Local Authority Duties, Supervision Orders, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Discharge of Care Orders Welfare of the Child Care Planning Local Authority Duties Supervision 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emi

Applicant (child)

Emi's Mother

Respondent (mother)

Emi's Father

Respondent (father)

West Sussex County Council

Respondent (local Authority)

Theresa Seale

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Family Application to Discharge Care Order / Final Judgment on Application to Discharge Care Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Care Order for Emi should be discharged and replaced with a Supervision Order or allowed to remain in force
  2. 2 Whether the local authority's failures in implementing the care plan justify discharge of the Care Order
  3. 3 Whether continued intervention by the local authority is necessary and proportionate for Emi's welfare

Ratio Decidendi

The Care Order should remain in force because, despite Emi's return home and progress, there remain unresolved risks relating to the father's ongoing threat, the mother's ambivalence to those risks, and the need for continued oversight, support, and safeguarding by the local authority. The failures of the local authority in implementing the care plan do not justify discharge, as Emi's welfare and safety require the continued protection and services available only under a Care Order. Discharge would risk loss of essential support and monitoring, and is not in Emi's best interests.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge Care Order refused; Care Order to remain in force.

Orders

  • Care Order for Emi to remain in force.
  • Emi to remain living with their mother under the Care Order.