H (Care Proceedings: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 727 (17 June 2025)

H (Care Proceedings: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 727 (17 June 2025)

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to provide adequate analysis of the evidence regarding risk, did not explain how recent improvements by the mother outweighed the established risks, and did not apply the welfare checklist or provide sufficient reasons for his decision. The deficiencies in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 727
Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third Respondent: Children's Guardian (for H)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Family Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Risk Assessment, Adoption, Supervision Orders, Welfare Checklist, Domestic Abuse, Threshold Criteria, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Risk Assessment Adoption Supervision Orders Welfare Checklist Domestic Abuse +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Children's Guardian (for H)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the risks to the child (H) if returned to her mother's care
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave adequate reasons for his decision and properly analysed the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge applied the statutory welfare checklist and relevant legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to provide adequate analysis of the evidence regarding risk, did not explain how recent improvements by the mother outweighed the established risks, and did not apply the welfare checklist or provide sufficient reasons for his decision. The deficiencies in the judgment made it impossible to discern the basis for the conclusion that H could safely return to her mother's care.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of Family Court set aside