EH v London Borough of Greenwich & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 344 (09 April 2010)

EH v London Borough of Greenwich & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 344 (09 April 2010)

The trial judge failed to properly analyse the statutory welfare checklist, did not explicitly consider Article 8 ECHR or proportionality, relied on flawed identification evidence, and did not consider alternatives or provide adequate reasoning for the draconian orders made. The care and placement orders are set...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 344
Parties
Appellant: EH; 1st Respondent: London Borough of Greenwich; 2nd Respondent: AA; 3rd & 4th Respondents: REA & RHA (through their Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care and Placement Orders) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; care and placement orders set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Adoption, Children Act 1989, Adoption and Children Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights Article 8, Identification Evidence, Welfare Checklist
Family Law Human Rights Care Orders Placement Orders Adoption Children Act 1989 Adoption and Children Act 2002 European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EH

Appellant

London Borough of Greenwich

1st Respondent

AA

2nd Respondent

REA & RHA (through their Children's Guardian)

3rd & 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care and Placement Orders) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding a continuing relationship between mother and father
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to apply and analyse the statutory welfare checklist
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider Article 8 ECHR and proportionality

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to properly analyse the statutory welfare checklist, did not explicitly consider Article 8 ECHR or proportionality, relied on flawed identification evidence, and did not consider alternatives or provide adequate reasoning for the draconian orders made. The care and placement orders are set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration with proper support and expert reassessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; care and placement orders set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing.

Orders

  • Care and placement orders made by trial judge set aside.
  • Matter to be timetabled for fresh final hearing of care proceedings and placement applications.