R (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 1638 (15 November 2006)

R (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 1638 (15 November 2006)

The judge erred in failing to make clear findings on the section 31 threshold, failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting expert and guardian evidence, and adopted an unrealistic and unsafe approach to rehabilitation in light of the evidence. The only proper order on the evidence was to make a care order for the child S.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1638
Parties
Appellant: Durham County Council; 1st Respondent: Mother of S; 2nd Respondent: Father of S; 3rd Respondent: Guardian ad litem
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Refusal of Care and Placement Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; care order made; placement order application adjourned.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Significant Harm, Domestic Violence, Judicial Discretion, Threshold Criteria
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Significant Harm Domestic Violence Judicial Discretion Threshold Criteria

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Durham County Council

Appellant

Mother of S

1st Respondent

Father of S

2nd Respondent

Guardian ad litem

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Refusal of Care and Placement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to make a care order and placement order for the child S
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to make adequate findings on the section 31 threshold criteria
  3. 3 Whether the judge improperly rejected expert and guardian evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in failing to make clear findings on the section 31 threshold, failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting expert and guardian evidence, and adopted an unrealistic and unsafe approach to rehabilitation in light of the evidence. The only proper order on the evidence was to make a care order for the child S.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; care order made; placement order application adjourned.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Care order made for child S