H-B-S (Children: Discharge of Interim Care Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 1027 (03 August 2020)

H-B-S (Children: Discharge of Interim Care Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 1027 (03 August 2020)

The judge was wrong to discharge the interim care orders in the middle of the fact-finding process without a significant change in evidence or risk assessment. Delay alone was not a sufficient basis to alter the arrangements, and the judge was not in a position to properly balance the risks or assess the necessity and proportionality of returning the children to their mother.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 1027
Parties
Appellant Local Authority: Hertfordshire County Council; Respondent Mother: Mother of E and S; 4th Respondent Father: Mr S; Respondent Children: E and S (Children) by their Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law) / Appeal From Order Discharging Interim Care Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order discharging interim care orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Discharge of Care Orders, Proportionality, Risk Assessment, Delay in Proceedings
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Discharge of Care Orders Proportionality Risk Assessment Delay in Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hertfordshire County Council

Appellant Local Authority

Mother of E and S

Respondent Mother

Mr S

4th Respondent Father

E and S (Children) by their Children's Guardian

Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law) / Appeal From Order Discharging Interim Care Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in discharging interim care orders before completion of fact-finding and risk assessment
  2. 2 Whether delay alone justified return of children to mother's care
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality test was correctly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was wrong to discharge the interim care orders in the middle of the fact-finding process without a significant change in evidence or risk assessment. Delay alone was not a sufficient basis to alter the arrangements, and the judge was not in a position to properly balance the risks or assess the necessity and proportionality of returning the children to their mother.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order discharging interim care orders set aside.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the judge's order set aside; interim care orders remain in effect.