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 Appeal held that the judge had approached the special guardianship decision as a simple welfare balance and should have applied proportionality and, in context, threshold analysis.
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
The court found that, despite the father's history of domestic abuse and substance misuse, he had demonstrated significant progress in abstaining from drugs and alcohol, provided good quality care to the children, and engaged with support services. The risk of future harm was recalibrated to moderate, and protective measures could be put in place. The children's welfare was best served by remaining with their father under a one-year supervision order, rather than being moved to their aunt, as the current arrangement avoided unnecessary disruption and maintained stability.
Source excerpt
Threshold for significant harm was crossed at the commencement of proceedings due to high cannabis use and poor engagement, but current evidence shows moderated substance use and good parenting; the risk of harm is now low and does not justify removal. Amy’s welfare is best served by remaining with Ella under a 12-month supervision order, with professional support focused on collaboration rather than monitoring.
Source excerpt
The threshold for public law intervention is crossed due to significant harm and risk of harm to Z from parental behaviour, domestic abuse, and neglect. The evidence demonstrates that A and B can provide safe, reparative parenting for Z, and risks can be managed through a Supervision Order. The making of a Special Guardianship Order and Supervision Order is necessary and proportionate to secure Z's welfare, and no further testing period is required given Z's established bond with A and B.
Source excerpt
A Council v JC & Ors [2025] EWFC 440 (11 December 2025)
Care proceedings concerning whether either parent caused fatal injuries to a toddler, alongside findings on delay, concealment, drug misuse, and L’s welfare.
The Child, Z, Re [2025] EWFC 449 (B) (19 November 2025)
The court made a Special Guardianship Order for Z in favour of her maternal grandmother and step-grandfather, with a 12-month Supervision Order.
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.
The court finds that the mother has not completed necessary therapeutic work, has limited insight into her parenting difficulties, and missed significant contact, resulting in risks of neglect and emotional harm to ZC. Placement with paternal grandmother under a Special Guardianship Order is in ZC's best interests, providing stability, safety, and consistent care. Further assessment is unnecessary given the totality of evidence.
Source excerpt
The default position under FPR 2010 r.12.3 is that the local authority party to the original care proceedings (LB Redbridge) remains a party to an application to discharge a special guardianship order, and there are insufficient grounds to depart from this default by substituting another local authority.
Source excerpt
Explore more
