K-H (Children) (Care Orders: Proportionality)

K-H (Children) (Care Orders: Proportionality)

The Family Court erred by relying on unproven allegations and concerns in its risk assessment, failing to base its welfare evaluation solely on proven facts. The welfare assessment was overwhelmed by risk and did not properly balance the positive features of the family placement or consider proportionality. The care orders constituted an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the children’s and grandparents’ right to respect for family life. The appeal was allowed, care orders set aside, and supervision orders substituted.

Parties
Appellants: Paternal Grandparents; Respondent Local Authority: London Borough of Waltham Forest; Respondents: Children (R, S, L) through Children’s Guardian; Respondent: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Family Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; care orders set aside; supervision orders substituted; interim child arrangements order restored; special guardianship application remitted.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Supervision Orders, Special Guardianship, Risk Assessment, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Supervision Orders Special Guardianship Risk Assessment Proportionality Article 8 ECHR

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paternal Grandparents

Appellants

London Borough of Waltham Forest

Respondent Local Authority

Children (R, S, L) through Children’s Guardian

Respondents

Father

Respondent

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court erred in making care orders for three children based on risk assessment
  2. 2 Whether the welfare assessment was overwhelmed by risk and failed to consider proportionality
  3. 3 Whether disputed allegations and unproven facts were impermissibly relied upon in risk assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Family Court erred by relying on unproven allegations and concerns in its risk assessment, failing to base its welfare evaluation solely on proven facts. The welfare assessment was overwhelmed by risk and did not properly balance the positive features of the family placement or consider proportionality. The care orders constituted an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the children’s and grandparents’ right to respect for family life. The appeal was allowed, care orders set aside, and supervision orders substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; care orders set aside; supervision orders substituted; interim child arrangements order restored; special guardianship application remitted.

Orders

  • Discharge of care orders for all three children
  • Substitution of supervision order for 12 months