Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Protection held that AR’s supported living placement was not a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, despite substantial restrictions and supervision.
The threshold for making a care order was met as the child suffered significant harm due to the mother's chaotic lifestyle, repeated moves, failure to meet medical and educational needs, and inability to provide stable care. The welfare analysis strongly favored the child remaining in long-term foster care, as the mother lacked insight and capacity to provide safe and stable parenting, and the care plan was a proportionate interference with family life.
Source excerpt
Both parties perpetrated domestic abuse in a toxic, volatile relationship. The mother was physically abusive towards the father, including hitting, threats, and loss of self-control, some of which she admitted. The father engaged in emotionally controlling and dismissive behaviour, including stonewalling, unilateral decision-making post-separation, and conduct likely to cause the mother emotional harm and ongoing control using the child. Both parties' behaviours caused emotional harm to the child. The court found specific allegations proven or part-proven as detailed, and determined that both…
Source excerpt
The threshold for a care order was met due to F1's emotional harm to the children, involvement in sexual activity with adolescents, refusal to foster A's relationship with his biological father, and refusal to accept help. A's age and strong wish to return home justified discharge of the interim care order and return to F1 under a supervision order, while B's needs and emotional welfare required a care order and continued foster placement.
Source excerpt
AZ's welfare will be best met by living with Mr and Mrs B under a Special Guardianship Order, as they can provide permanence, stability, and trauma-informed therapeutic parenting to meet his individual emotional and educational needs, outweighing the harm of separation from his sibling C and Mr D. The arrangement removes AZ from ongoing risks of parental conflict and statutory intervention, while maintaining meaningful family relationships through flexible contact. No child arrangements order for contact or parental responsibility is necessary or proportionate, as Mr and Mrs B can be trusted…
Source excerpt
The judge did not err in refusing the placement order for adoption because, despite not setting out a formal balance sheet, he adequately considered and weighed the relevant factors, including the child’s settled status with current foster carers, the realistic prospects of adoption with meaningful contact, and the best interests of the child. The evidence supported the conclusion that long-term foster care with the current carers was in S’s welfare interests and that her welfare did not require dispensing with parental consent for adoption.
Source excerpt
The High Court ordered the return of three children to England from Dubai under its inherent jurisdiction, finding their welfare required return.
The court found threshold met in chronic neglect proceedings, granted final care orders for three children, and refused F’s application for a further ISW assessment.
Oxfordshire County Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 92 (B) (27 April 2026)
Care proceedings involving chronic neglect. The court made final care orders for three children, refused a further assessment of the father, and endorsed long-term foster care.
PX lacks capacity to make relevant decisions; MX's contact must be supervised due to risk of emotional harm; PX should reside with FX during holidays; no restrictions on FX's contact; DOLs and permission requirement orders are justified to protect PX's welfare.
Source excerpt
Explore more
