The children had been taken into care, and freed for adoption. The mother appealed saying the blame for non-accidental injury was misplaced. The court had not thought her responsible for the non-accidental injuries, but she had been unwilling to separate from the assumed perpetrator. Held: The mother had now taken the step of breaking free. … Continue reading In re K (Children) (Non-accidental injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence): CA 27 Aug 2004

Three elder brothers and sisters of Z had been taken into care after one suffered serious non-accidental injury. Before Z’s birth the authority planned for a placement, but had stayed with her parents for nearly a year subject to supervision in the hope that she could stay there. The evidence was that she could not … Continue reading The Local Authority v RK and RU and Z (by her Children’s Guardian): FD 21 Aug 2008

Judges: King, Lindblom, Peter Jackson LJJ Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 575, [2019] WLR(D) 208 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635638

It should be routine that, when presenting a case before a court to apply for a care order, the applicant authority should provide a written statement of the reasons, upon which it argued that the threshold conditions had been met. That statement should be based upon the evidence available at the time the decision to … Continue reading In Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions): CA 5 Jul 2001

Section 31 and its associated emergency and interim provisions comprise the only court mechanism available to a local authority to protect a child from risk. The interpretation of the ‘attributable’ condition adopted by the House of Lords is necessary to avoid the unacceptable consequence that, if the court cannot identify which of a child’s carers … Continue reading Re B (minors) (Care proceedings: practice): FD 1999

Guidance on findings in respect of threshold criteria Judges: McFarlane, Lindblom LJJ Citations: [2018] WLR(D) 370, [2018] EWCA Civ 1282, [2018] 4 WLR 143, [2018] 3 FCR 186 Links: Bailii Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.617327

Care proceedings Mr Justice Keehan [2019] EWHC 2369 (Fam), [2019] 1 WLR 6749, [2019] WLR(D) 537, [2019] 3 FCR 742 Bailii, WLRD Children Act 1989 31(2) England and Wales Children Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.648664

A child had died. The father was accused and acquitted of murder by way of shaken baby syndrome. The local authority persisted with an application for care orders for the other children. Held: ‘I do not claim to have divined truth. I have reached conclusions based on what I believe to have been proved to … Continue reading A Local Authority v S and W and T By her Guardian: FD 27 May 2004

The date for consideration of whether the first or second threshold criteria had been met for care was when application made, or if continuous temporary arrangements for care made, from the date those arrangements were installed. Consistency between limbs was required. Citations: Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Times 29-Jul-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Southwark London Borough Council v B and Others: FD 29 Jul 1998

Care proceedings were commenced for one child after the death of a sibling, but without evidence as to which carer was responsible. Held: It had not been established upon a balance of probabilities that any one or more of the injuries were caused by either the mother or father. The mother must be treated as … Continue reading Re O and N (Care: preliminary hearing): CA 2002

The court rejected an argument that ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ in the subsection was to be equated with ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Citations: [1993] 1 FLR 28 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Applied – In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings) FD 2-Jan-1993 It was again argued … Continue reading Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General: CA 1993

Hale LJ said that ‘a comparatively small risk of really serious harm can justify action, while even the virtual certainty of slight harm might not’. Judges: Hale LJ Citations: [2001] 1 FLR 611 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County … Continue reading Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm): CA 2001

The threshold conditions for the making of a care order, relate to the absence of proper care of a child, and the suffering of significant harm whilst in care arrangements then prevailing. There was no requirement on the court that it be able to apportion any direct responsibility for that harm to any individual person. … Continue reading Re B and W (Minors), Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others: CA 27 Jul 1999

Where a supervision order was sought by local authority in respect of allegations made which were awaiting trial, and an order could be made before the criminal findings where enough was admitted by the carer to support the need for a supervision order. Citations: Gazette 01-Jul-1998 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Re B (Threshold Criteria): CA 9 Jun 1998

An allegation had been made by a daughter of sexual abuse against her step-father. Despite his acquittal, the local authority went ahead with an application for a care order. The authority now appealed against a finding that it had not established a risk to the children to a sufficient standard. Held: The appeal failed. The … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors): CA 1994

For an order to be made, the child was to be continuing to suffer harm at the hearing date and the harm should resultant from the alleged lack of care. Citations: Ind Summary 08-Nov-1993 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85819

The father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the child’s mother. Application was made for the child to be made subject to a care order. The father appealed refusal of an order. Held: When an application was made on the basis that a child was suffering significant harm after making interim … Continue reading Re M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions): HL 7 Jun 1994

Toleration of Diverse Parenting Standards Hedley J considered the meaning of ‘significant harm’: ‘What about the court’s approach . . to the issue of significant harm? In order to understand this concept and the range of harm that it’s intended to encompass, it is right to begin with issues of policy. Basically it is the … Continue reading Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria): FD 2007

The case concerned a boy aged eight at the material time, both of whose parents had severe mental health problems. Very shortly after he had been returned to his mother’s care when she came out of hospital, she suffered a relapse and called an . .