A (A Child) (Refusal of Permission to Appeal: Challenge to Case Management), Re

A (A Child) (Refusal of Permission to Appeal: Challenge to Case Management), Re

The District Judge was entitled to refuse adjournment and proceed on submissions given the appellant's repeated non-compliance, clear directions, and admitted evidence; there was no procedural unfairness or violation of Article 6 or 8, and the substantive decision was supported by clear assessment evidence that no support would enable safe parenting.

Parties
Appellant: A Mother; First Respondent: The London Borough of Brent; Second Respondent: The Children (by their children’s guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Permission to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal out of time granted; permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Case Management, Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Support for Vulnerable Parents
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Case Management Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Mother

Appellant

The London Borough of Brent

First Respondent

The Children (by their children’s guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Permission to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in refusing an adjournment for a contested hearing
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in making final care and placement orders on submissions
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied a fair trial and her Article 6 and 8 rights were violated

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled to refuse adjournment and proceed on submissions given the appellant's repeated non-compliance, clear directions, and admitted evidence; there was no procedural unfairness or violation of Article 6 or 8, and the substantive decision was supported by clear assessment evidence that no support would enable safe parenting.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal out of time granted; permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Time for any challenge to this decision extended to run from 10am on Monday 22 December 2025.
  • Any proposed redactions (save as to names) to be provided by 4pm on 23 December 2025.