England and Wales Case Law

London Borough of Havering v R & Ors

The court finds that threshold criteria are met due to the parents' vulnerabilities, substance misuse, lack of engagement, and inability to provide safe and consistent care for Q. Further residential assessment of R is not justified as it would cause delay, is unlikely to be positive, and is not in Q's welfare interests. There are no realistic family or friend placement options. Adoption is the only option that meets Q's immediate and long-term welfare needs. Parental consent to placement order is dispensed with as Q's welfare requires it.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Parental responsibility
• Threshold criteria
• Welfare checklist
• Residential assessment

Read case analysis

A Child born 2017 – Final Hearing, Re

The father's failure to address or provide evidence regarding his domestic abuse and substance misuse, his lack of insight, and his non-compliance with court orders present ongoing risks to the child. The welfare of the child requires that no direct or indirect contact (other than limited provision of photographs) be ordered, and that a section 91(14) order be made to restrict further applications for five years.

Source excerpt

• Child contact
• Domestic abuse
• Substance misuse
• Section 91(14) children act
• Welfare checklist
• Parental responsibility

Read case analysis

Gloucestershire County Council v D & Ors

A 12-month supervision order is necessary and proportionate to support the mother in her ongoing recovery and to safeguard the welfare of the child G, given the mother's significant progress but ongoing vulnerability within the first year of recovery.

Source excerpt

• Supervision order
• Substance misuse
• Domestic abuse
• Welfare checklist
• Fdac (family drugs and alcohol court)

Read case analysis

Middlesbrough Borough Council v Mother & Ors

The threshold for significant harm under s.31(2) Children Act 1989 is met due to parental substance misuse, mental health issues, domestic abuse, neglectful parenting, unsafe home conditions, and failure to engage with professionals. Welfare analysis supports care orders for X and W with foster placement, and supervision/child arrangements orders for Z and Y to live with Mr A. Section 91(14) order is justified to prevent further disruptive applications for 12 months due to ongoing risk of harm and lack of parental insight.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Supervision orders
• Threshold criteria
• Domestic abuse
• Substance misuse
• Mental health

Read case analysis

C (Welfare: Care Order), Re

The court found that the threshold for a care order was met due to proven risks of significant harm from neglect, substance misuse, domestic abuse, and inability to implement protective boundaries. The mother's change in position and acceptance of the Local Authority's plan was credited, but the risks in her care far exceeded the disadvantages of separation. A care order was necessary and proportionate to safeguard Cora's welfare, with ongoing supervised contact and a plan for therapeutic support for the mother.

Source excerpt

• Care order
• Child welfare
• Parental responsibility
• Substance misuse
• Domestic abuse
• Child sexual exploitation

Read case analysis

C, Re (Welfare: Care Order)

C, Re (Welfare: Care Order) [2026] EWFC 61 (B) (02 March 2026)

The court found the threshold for significant harm was met due to the mother's chronic neglect, inability to implement boundaries, exposure of the child to sexual harm, substance misuse, and domestic abuse. The risks to Cora in the mother's care outweighed the disadvantages of separation. A final care order was necessary and proportionate to safeguard Cora's welfare, with the care plan for her to remain in residential placement with her siblings and supervised contact with the mother.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Welfare of the child
• Parental responsibility
• Threshold criteria
• Domestic abuse
• Substance misuse

Read case analysis

A Child Born 2017, Re (Final Hearing)

A Child Born 2017, Re (Final Hearing) [2026] EWFC 55 (B) (27 February 2026)

The court refused direct child contact, allowed only photo-sharing, and made a five-year section 91(14) order after finding ongoing risks from domestic abuse and substance misuse.

• Child contact
• Domestic abuse
• Substance misuse
• Section 91(14) children act 1989
• Welfare checklist
• Parental responsibility

Read case analysis

A & B (Children) (Placement with parent or SGO), Re

A & B (Children) (Placement with parent or SGO), Re [2026] EWFC 19 (B) (30 January 2026)

Family Court decision on child placement, resolving a domestic abuse and substance misuse dispute. The judge kept the children with their father under supervision.

• Special guardianship orders
• Supervision orders
• Domestic abuse
• Substance misuse
• Child welfare
• Fact-finding hearings

Read case analysis

Amy (A Child) (Welfare Hearing), Re

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

• Threshold for significant harm
• Supervision order
• Special guardianship order
• Parenting assessment
• Substance misuse
• Mental health

Read case analysis

Cheshire East Borough Council v Mother & Ors

Adoption is necessary and proportionate for Child A as neither parent nor mother's friend D are realistic placement options; further delay is unjustified and contrary to Child A's welfare; the Placement Order application is procedurally valid and the court is satisfied that the threshold criteria are met.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Placement orders
• Adoption
• Delay in proceedings
• Kinship assessment
• Mental health

Read case analysis