L-A (Children), Re

L-A (Children), Re

The judge erred in law by treating Ryder J’s phrase 'imminent risk of really serious harm' as a binding new threshold, thereby misdirecting himself and applying a higher standard than required by established appellate authority. The correct test is whether the child’s safety requires immediate separation, not the existence of imminent risk of really serious harm.

Parties
Applicant: Coventry City Council; First Respondent: Mother; Third to Eighth Respondents: Children (by their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children) / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Care Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for retrial
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Removal of Children From Home, Children Act 1989, Judicial Interpretation of Statutory Thresholds
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Removal of Children From Home Children Act 1989 Judicial Interpretation of Statutory Thresholds

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coventry City Council

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

Children (by their Children’s Guardian)

Third to Eighth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children) / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Care Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge misdirected himself in law by applying an incorrect threshold for removal of children under an interim care order
  2. 2 Whether the test for removal requires 'imminent risk of really serious harm' or the established appellate standard

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by treating Ryder J’s phrase 'imminent risk of really serious harm' as a binding new threshold, thereby misdirecting himself and applying a higher standard than required by established appellate authority. The correct test is whether the child’s safety requires immediate separation, not the existence of imminent risk of really serious harm.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for retrial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Case remitted to County Court for retrial before expiry of current interim care order