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 appeal succeeded because the District Judge failed to provide a judgment setting out adequate reasons, did not have reasonable grounds for believing the threshold for an Interim Care Order was met, imposed a Prohibited Steps Order and Penal Notice without proper evidential basis or procedural fairness, and failed to consider the welfare checklist.
Source excerpt
F v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 433 (B) (24 November 2025)
The Family Court made X live with her father, refused the mother’s relocation request, ordered supervised contact only, and imposed a section 91(14) bar until age 13.
The court finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the bilateral hand bruising and rib fracture sustained by child A were inflicted injuries caused by an adult, most likely one of the parents, but is unable to identify the perpetrator. Both parents failed to provide an honest explanation. No finding is made of failure to protect or delay in seeking medical attention.
Source excerpt
Immediate removal of both children from mother's care is necessary and proportionate due to ongoing risk of harm, mother's inability to provide safe parenting without 24/7 supervision, and lack of available support options. The threshold for interim care order is met and no alternative placement is feasible.
Source excerpt
AM (aged 7 years), In the Matter Of [2025] EWFC 409 (B) (13 August 2025)
The appeal succeeded against an interim care order, a prohibited steps order, and a penal notice, after the judge held there were no reasonable grounds and no adequate reasons.
A Local Authority v The child C [2024] EWFC 336 (21 November 2024)
The court refused to let a local authority withdraw care proceedings in favour of wardship, held threshold could be met despite the mother’s death, and made an interim care order.
The applicants (uncle and aunt) engaged in sustained alienating behaviours, fabricated allegations of sexual abuse, and instilled a false narrative in the child, causing emotional harm and significant risk. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that the child’s negative views and resistance to the father are the result of deliberate manipulation and inappropriate adult influence by the applicants.
Source excerpt
The proposed assessment at Phoenix Futures is not an assessment of the child as required by s.38(6) Children Act 1989; the main focus is the parents' rehabilitation, and any observations of the child are ancillary. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to order the assessment under s.38(6).
Source excerpt
Mr Adsett seriously breached the undertaking given to protect C from harm, including repeated unsupervised contact and communication, despite being fully aware of the consequences. The breaches were deliberate and occurred soon after the undertaking was given. The seriousness of the breaches and the risk of harm justified a custodial sentence, but mitigation included his remorse, full-time employment, and absence of further breaches for six months, warranting suspension of the sentence.
Source excerpt
Permission to withdraw care proceedings is granted because the Local Authority cannot establish threshold for significant harm. The removal of the child from the grandparents was not justified on the evidence available, and the Local Authority's actions, including the use of police powers, delay in issuing proceedings, and failures in disclosure, constituted a serious and disproportionate interference with the child's and grandparents' right to family life. The Local Authority failed to properly assess risk, consider its own records, or act proportionately at all stages. The harm to the child…
Source excerpt
Explore more
