M (Care Order: Risk: Family Placement), Re

M (Care Order: Risk: Family Placement), Re

The Family Court judge failed to properly consider mitigation of risk, did not conduct a true comparative evaluation of placement options, and allowed risk assessment to dominate welfare analysis without sufficient attention to other welfare factors and proportionality. The removal of M from her mother was not shown to be necessary or proportionate given the evidence and available supports.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; First Respondent: Local Authority; Second Respondent: Father; Third Respondent: Child (M), by her Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Family Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; care order set aside; interim care order substituted; case remitted for further case management.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Risk Assessment, Family Placement, Proportionality, Welfare Checklist, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Risk Assessment Family Placement Proportionality Welfare Checklist 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Local Authority

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Child (M), by her Children’s Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the risk to child M posed by her father can be mitigated to allow her to remain with her mother
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court judge failed to conduct a proper comparative evaluation of placement options
  3. 3 Whether removal of M from her mother was necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Family Court judge failed to properly consider mitigation of risk, did not conduct a true comparative evaluation of placement options, and allowed risk assessment to dominate welfare analysis without sufficient attention to other welfare factors and proportionality. The removal of M from her mother was not shown to be necessary or proportionate given the evidence and available supports.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; care order set aside; interim care order substituted; case remitted for further case management.

Orders

  • Set aside care order removing M from her mother
  • Substitute interim care order