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 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
The threshold for care orders is met due to the mother's inability, despite significant effort and support, to meet the children's basic needs and protect them from harm. A final care order for C and a placement order for A are necessary and proportionate to safeguard their welfare, as no less intrusive alternatives are available.
Source excerpt
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
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
B, In the Matter Of [2026] EWFC 107 (B) (14 May 2026)
In care proceedings, the court found B suffered significant harm through a serious head injury while in her parents’ care, but could not identify which parent caused it.
The court found B suffered a serious head injury in her parents’ care, but could not identify which parent caused it. Threshold was met; no finding of deliberate injury.
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.
A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 84 (B) (10 April 2026)
The court found H suffered non-accidental skull and head injuries, but could not identify whether the mother or father caused them. A Special Guardianship Order and 12-month Supervision Order were made.
The court found that, despite some progress, the parents were unable to provide consistent, safe, and adequate care for V due to ongoing deficits in insight, acceptance of past harm, and inability to work with or accept support. The threshold for care and placement orders was met, and adoption was necessary and proportionate to secure V's welfare. Further assessment was not justified given the extensive history and lack of meaningful change. The parents' consent to adoption was dispensed with as required by V's welfare.
Source excerpt
Explore more
