H-B-S (Children: Discharge of Interim Care Order)

H-B-S (Children: Discharge of Interim Care Order)

The judge erred in discharging the interim care orders in the middle of the fact-finding process without a significant change in evidence or proper risk assessment. Delay alone did not justify the return of the children to their mother, and the judge was not in a position to balance the risks without understanding the cause of T’s injuries.

Parties
Appellant Local Authority: Hertfordshire County Council; Respondent: Mother; 4th Respondent Father: Mr S (Father); Respondent Children: Children (E and S) by their Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal Against Discharge of Interim Care Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; discharge of interim care orders set aside; interim care orders remain in effect.
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Discharge of Care Orders, Proportionality, Delay in Proceedings, Risk Assessment
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Discharge of Care Orders Proportionality Delay in Proceedings Risk Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hertfordshire County Council

Appellant Local Authority

Mother

Respondent

Mr S (Father)

4th Respondent Father

Children (E and S) by their Children’s Guardian

Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Children) / Appeal Against Discharge of Interim Care Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in discharging interim care orders before completion of fact-finding hearing
  2. 2 Whether delay in proceedings justified return of children to mother
  3. 3 Whether risk assessment was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in discharging the interim care orders in the middle of the fact-finding process without a significant change in evidence or proper risk assessment. Delay alone did not justify the return of the children to their mother, and the judge was not in a position to balance the risks without understanding the cause of T’s injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; discharge of interim care orders set aside; interim care orders remain in effect.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the judge’s order set aside.
  • Interim care orders to remain in effect pending further hearing.