DD (Removal under ICO)

DD (Removal under ICO)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's decision to remove D from AH’s care was not in accordance with the legal principles of necessity and proportionality, given D’s settled placement, the duration of interim arrangements, the proximity of the final hearing, and the longstanding knowledge of volatility. The court found that the risk to D’s safety and welfare did not require immediate removal and that undertakings and an amended care plan could sufficiently protect D pending the final hearing.

Parties
First Appellant: GD; Second Appellant: AH; First Respondent: A Local Authority; Second Respondent: CT; Third Respondent: GT; Fourth Respondent: SB; Fifth Respondent: DD; Sixth Respondent: AJ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interim Care Order Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Removal of Child, Parental Responsibility, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Removal of Child Parental Responsibility Proportionality Article 8 ECHR

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

GD

First Appellant

AH

Second Appellant

A Local Authority

First Respondent

CT

Second Respondent

GT

Third Respondent

SB

Fourth Respondent

DD

Fifth Respondent

AJ

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interim Care Order Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for removing D from AH’s care under an interim care order was met
  2. 2 Whether removal was necessary and proportionate given the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the judge at first instance applied the correct legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's decision to remove D from AH’s care was not in accordance with the legal principles of necessity and proportionality, given D’s settled placement, the duration of interim arrangements, the proximity of the final hearing, and the longstanding knowledge of volatility. The court found that the risk to D’s safety and welfare did not require immediate removal and that undertakings and an amended care plan could sufficiently protect D pending the final hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interim care order substituted on the basis that D will not be removed from AH’s care until the conclusion of proceedings or further order
  • Local authority to file an amended care plan by 10 am on 20 January 2021