S (Children) (Interim Threshold), Re

S (Children) (Interim Threshold), Re

The threshold for interim care orders was not met because the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of significant harm by being taken to X. The parents demonstrated informed, careful, and responsible decision-making, and the FCDO travel advice, while relevant, was advisory and not determinative. There was no evidence of unreasonable parental care or covert risk. Consequently, care proceedings and inherent jurisdiction orders were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; Respondent: A Mother; Respondent: A Father; Respondent: A, B, C, D (the children acting by their Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Interim Threshold Determination and Review
Outcome
Application for interim care order dismissed; inherent jurisdiction orders discharged.
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Parental Responsibility, Inherent Jurisdiction, Threshold Criteria, State Intervention, Travel Restrictions
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Parental Responsibility Inherent Jurisdiction Threshold Criteria State Intervention Travel Restrictions

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

A Mother

Respondent

A Father

Respondent

A, B, C, D (the children acting by their Guardian)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Interim Threshold Determination and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for interim care orders under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is met
  2. 2 Whether parental plans to travel with children to a high-risk country constitute likely significant harm attributable to unreasonable parental care
  3. 3 Whether orders under the inherent jurisdiction are justified

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for interim care orders was not met because the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of significant harm by being taken to X. The parents demonstrated informed, careful, and responsible decision-making, and the FCDO travel advice, while relevant, was advisory and not determinative. There was no evidence of unreasonable parental care or covert risk. Consequently, care proceedings and inherent jurisdiction orders were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim care order dismissed; inherent jurisdiction orders discharged.

Orders

  • Care proceedings dismissed
  • Port Alert order discharged