B (Children)

B (Children)

The Recorder was wrong to find that the section 38(2) threshold was not met for D, but was right to refuse interim care orders as immediate removal was not necessary or proportionate; risks did not justify removal at the interim stage.

Parties
Appellant: Kent County Council; 1st Respondent: L (Mother); 2nd Respondent: S (Mother); 3rd Respondent: D (Child); 4th Respondent: C (Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Care Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Threshold Criteria, Removal of Children, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Threshold Criteria Removal of Children Welfare of the Child

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent County Council

Appellant

L (Mother)

1st Respondent

S (Mother)

2nd Respondent

D (Child)

3rd Respondent

C (Child)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Care Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonable grounds for believing threshold criteria for interim care orders were met
  2. 2 Whether immediate removal of children was necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was wrong to find that the section 38(2) threshold was not met for D, but was right to refuse interim care orders as immediate removal was not necessary or proportionate; risks did not justify removal at the interim stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interim care orders granted
  • Directions for progress to final hearing