England and Wales Case Law

W v The London Borough of Brent & Ors

The removal of H from MA's care was wrongful as the Local Authority failed to follow the guidance in Re DE, did not notify the Guardian, and acted on chronic concerns that did not warrant urgent removal. The Special Guardianship Order in favour of MA was appropriate, and the judgment should be published naming the Local Authority for transparency and public interest.

Source excerpt

• Special guardianship order
• Care order discharge
• Child arrangements order
• Local authority duties
• Kinship placement
• Transparency in family courts

Read case analysis

H, In the Matter Of

H, In the Matter Of [2025] EWFC 485 (B) (29 October 2025)

The Family Court held that Brent wrongfully removed a child from his maternal aunt’s care without proper notice or consultation, then made a special guardianship order.

• Special guardianship order
• Care order discharge
• Supervision order
• Child removal by local authority
• Transparency in family proceedings
• Publication of judgments

Read case analysis

A v B, C, D and the Local Authority

A v B, C, D and the Local Authority [2025] EWFC 464 (B) (17 February 2025)

The Family Court granted a Special Guardianship order to the paternal aunt and uncle, rejected the mother’s bid for immediate unsupervised contact, and approved gradual contact arrangements.

• Special guardianship
• Care order discharge
• Child arrangements
• Contact with parent
• Local authority duties
• Special-guardianship

Read case analysis

M (A Child) (No. 2), Re

The care order is discharged as Alice is a capable parent and ongoing state intervention is unwarranted; Bethany’s conduct and lack of demonstrable change pose significant risks to Mary’s emotional welfare, requiring supervised contact and restriction of parental responsibility; a section 91(14) order is imposed for 5 years to ensure stability and prevent further disruptive litigation.

Source excerpt

• Care order discharge
• Child arrangements
• Supervised contact
• Section 91(14) leave requirement
• Parental responsibility

Read case analysis

M (A Child), Re (No. 2)

M (A Child), Re (No. 2) [2024] EWFC 99 (B) (02 May 2023)

The court discharged a care order, made a 12-month supervision order, ordered Mary to live with Alice, and kept Bethany’s contact supervised because of ongoing risk.

• Care order discharge
• Child arrangements order
• Supervision order
• Section 91(14) order
• Parental responsibility
• Contact with child in care

Read case analysis

Re E (DOLs)

The High Court extended a deprivation of liberty order for a 17-year-old child with complex needs and dismissed the parents’ application to discharge the care order.

• Deprivation of liberty
• Care order discharge
• Parental responsibility
• Child welfare
• Legal aid
• Religious rights

Read case analysis

R (a child : reporting restrictions : transcript of hearing)

R (a child : reporting restrictions : transcript of hearing) [2018] EWHC 3997 (Fam) (19 October 2018)

The court discharged a care order, imposed a six-month supervision order, and made reporting restrictions to protect the family’s identity.

• Care order discharge
• Supervision order
• Reporting restrictions
• Confidentiality
• Rehabilitation of child
• Family-law

Read case analysis

GM v Carmarthenshire County Council & Anor

The Family Court discharged a care order, finding the child could safely return to his mother. It criticised reliance on attachment-theory evidence and ordered supervision for one year.

• Care order discharge
• Parental responsibility
• Child attachment
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Proportionality
• Family reunification

Read case analysis

In the Matter of D (A Child) (No 3)

The Family Court held that D should be placed for adoption, dismissing the father's application to discharge the care order and dispensing with parental consent.

• Placement order
• Adoption
• Parental disability
• Care order discharge
• Article 8 echr
• Parenting with support

Read case analysis

K (A Child: Therapy), Re

K (A Child: Therapy), Re [2013] EWHC 3747 (Fam) (19 February 2013)

The High Court held that Katie’s therapy should be provided by Family Futures, finding its expertise and prior engagement gave her the best chance of effective treatment.

• Wardship
• Post-adoption placement breakdown
• Therapeutic provision for children
• Care order discharge
• Child-therapy
• Family-law

Read case analysis