England and Wales Case Law

N (A Child) (Care Order: Welfare Evaluation), Re

The trial judge failed to undertake the required balanced, evaluative, holistic assessment of the competing placement options for N, instead incorrectly placing the fulcrum of the balancing exercise in favour of parental placement, misapplying Re L, and relying on an inadequate assessment by Italian social services. This flawed process necessitates setting aside the decision and remitting the matter for rehearing.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Welfare evaluation
• Balancing exercise
• International social services
• Parental assessment

Read case analysis

E (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders)

The appeal was allowed because the recorder was wrong to conclude that a psychological assessment of the mother was unnecessary. There was a clear evidential gap regarding the mother’s psychological profile and the support she would require to care for her child. Without this assessment, the court could not properly evaluate the realistic options for E’s future or determine whether adoption was necessary and proportionate. The orders were set aside and the case remitted for rehearing with a psychological assessment to be conducted.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Expert evidence
• Parental assessment
• Proportionality
• Article 8 echr

Read case analysis

S (A Child) (Care and Placement), Re

Further parental assessments are not necessary as the court already has extensive evidence over a sustained period, and the prospects of successful change are too limited to justify further delay. Amy’s welfare requires permanence and stability that only adoption can provide; long-term foster care does not offer sufficient security. The threshold for a care order is met due to significant harm and risk of harm from parental conduct, including domestic abuse and neglect.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Adoption
• Parental assessment
• Domestic abuse
• Delay in proceedings

Read case analysis

S (A Child) (Care and Placement), Re

S (A Child) (Care and Placement), Re [2024] EWFC 211 (B) (05 July 2024)

The Family Court made a care order and placement order for Amy, refused further parental assessments, and held adoption was necessary to secure her welfare.

• Care orders
• Adoption
• Parental assessment
• Domestic abuse
• Child welfare
• Delay in proceedings

Read case analysis

G (A Child: Care Order) (Complex Developmental Needs) (No 2), Re

A care order with placement in Spring Home is necessary and proportionate because the parents' entrenched deficits in understanding and meeting G's complex needs present a high risk of significant harm that cannot be ameliorated by further assessment or support. The only realistic welfare option is the local authority's plan. The harm of ongoing separation is outweighed by the greater risk of harm if G is placed with his parents, even for assessment. There is no evidential basis for further assessment having realistic prospects of success.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Parental assessment
• Welfare of the child
• Expert evidence
• Section 38(6) children act 1989

Read case analysis

Gloucestershire County Council v Mother & Ors

The Family Court granted care and placement orders for Child H, refused further assessment, and held that adoption best met his welfare needs.

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Parental assessment
• Procedural fairness
• Removal at birth

Read case analysis

D, E, F and G (Children : Art 15 - transfer of the proceedings) (Rev 2)

Family proceedings about four children. The court refused to transfer the care case to Romania under Article 15 BIIR, finding no sufficiently strong basis to displace UK jurisdiction.

• Article 15 brussels ii revised (biir)
• Jurisdiction transfer
• Best interests of the child
• Parental assessment
• Child welfare
• Habitual residence

Read case analysis

A v W & Ors No 2 (Welfare)

The Family Court refused the mother’s request for further assessment and granted care and placement orders for two children, finding delay would harm their welfare.

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Child welfare
• Parental assessment
• Adoption
• Section 38(6) children act 1989

Read case analysis

L (A Child), Re

L (A Child), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 901 (30 June 2015)

The Court of Appeal dismissed a mother's appeal against care and placement orders for her child, upholding findings of pervasive neglect, delay, and future risk.

• Care orders
• Placement for adoption
• Threshold criteria
• Neglect
• Developmental delay
• Parental assessment

Read case analysis

TM and TJ (Children : care orders)

TM and TJ (Children : care orders) [2015] EWFC B83 (29 June 2015)

The court adjourned care proceedings after finding the Local Authority had not filed adequate assessments or evidence within the 26-week timetable.

• Care orders
• Parental assessment
• Case management
• Delay in proceedings
• Care-orders
• Parental-assessment

Read case analysis