Re DAM (Children)

Re DAM (Children)

The judge's findings of fact amply satisfied the threshold for making care orders and adequately supported the welfare decision. Despite structural weaknesses in the judgment, all significant welfare factors were evaluated and the orders were necessary and proportionate. There was no serious procedural irregularity and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Local Authority; Respondent: Father of M; Respondent: Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal Family Law (care Orders) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Welfare Checklist, Threshold Criteria, Proportionality, Judicial Reasoning
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Welfare Checklist Threshold Criteria Proportionality Judicial Reasoning

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Local Authority

Respondent

Father of M

Respondent

Children’s Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Family Law (care Orders) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for care orders was met under the Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the judge conducted a proper welfare assessment and proportionality analysis
  3. 3 Whether the judgment structure amounted to a serious procedural irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings of fact amply satisfied the threshold for making care orders and adequately supported the welfare decision. Despite structural weaknesses in the judgment, all significant welfare factors were evaluated and the orders were necessary and proportionate. There was no serious procedural irregularity and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; care orders for D and A upheld; no order as to costs specified