C (A Child), Re

C (A Child), Re

There were reasonable grounds for believing that E had suffered or was likely to suffer significant emotional harm attributable to the care given by her parents, particularly due to the mother's mental health and inability to cooperate with professionals. The judge's decision to continue the interim care order was within the reasonable ambit of discretion, balancing the harm of separation against the risk of greater harm if E were returned to her mother's care. The appeal was dismissed as the threshold was met and no error of law or principle was found.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Father; Respondent: Local Authority; Subject: Child (E)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil, Family) / Appeal Against Interim Care Order; Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Mother's appeal dismissed; Father's application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Significant Harm Threshold, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Significant Harm Threshold Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Father

Respondent

Local Authority

Respondent

Child (E)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil, Family) / Appeal Against Interim Care Order; Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for interim care order under section 38 and section 31(2) Children Act 1989 was met
  2. 2 Whether the harm or likely harm to the child was 'significant'
  3. 3 Whether the interim care order was a necessary and proportionate response

Ratio Decidendi

There were reasonable grounds for believing that E had suffered or was likely to suffer significant emotional harm attributable to the care given by her parents, particularly due to the mother's mental health and inability to cooperate with professionals. The judge's decision to continue the interim care order was within the reasonable ambit of discretion, balancing the harm of separation against the risk of greater harm if E were returned to her mother's care. The appeal was dismissed as the threshold was met and no error of law or principle was found.

Court Disposition

Mother's appeal dismissed; Father's application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Interim care order to continue
  • Case to proceed to final hearing as scheduled