In the matter of H-W (Children)

In the matter of H-W (Children)

The judge at first instance erred in law by failing to conduct the required evaluative, side-by-side analysis of all available options and mitigations, and did not adequately assess whether the care orders were proportionate and necessary. This flaw in reasoning required the appellate court to set aside the orders and remit the case for rehearing.

Parties
1st Appellant: M (mother of C, D, E and F); 2nd Appellant: F3 (partner of M and father of F); 1st Respondent: A Local Authority; 2nd Respondent: F1 (father of C and D); 3rd Respondent: F2 (father of E); 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents: Children’s Guardians
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming First Instance Care Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR, Appellate Review, Children Act 1989, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Orders Proportionality Article 8 ECHR Appellate Review Children Act 1989 +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M (mother of C, D, E and F)

1st Appellant

F3 (partner of M and father of F)

2nd Appellant

A Local Authority

1st Respondent

F1 (father of C and D)

2nd Respondent

F2 (father of E)

3rd Respondent

Children’s Guardians

4th, 5th and 6th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Affirming First Instance Care Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in law by failing to properly assess the proportionality of care orders removing children from parental care
  2. 2 Whether the judge conducted the required evaluative, holistic assessment of all available options and mitigations
  3. 3 What is the correct approach for appellate courts in reviewing such decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance erred in law by failing to conduct the required evaluative, side-by-side analysis of all available options and mitigations, and did not adequately assess whether the care orders were proportionate and necessary. This flaw in reasoning required the appellate court to set aside the orders and remit the case for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Care orders set aside
  • Case remitted for rehearing before a different judge