Re L (Children), (Care Proceedings: Significant Harm): CA 25 Aug 2006

The Court allowed an appeal by parents against a judge’s conclusion that their children had suffered and were likely to suffer significant harm and it remitted the issue for re-hearing. The professional evidence had been that the parents’ deficiencies had had ‘subtle and ambiguous consequences’ for the children. Such consequences could not amount to significant harm.
Sometimes albeit only after the closest inquiry, a child falls properly to be taken into long-term care although his initial removal from the parents was prompted by an allegation which turns out to be entirely false.


[2006] EWCA Civ 1282, [2007] Fam Law 17, [2006] 3 FCR 301, [2007] 1 FLR 1068




Children Act 1989 31


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRe MA and Others (Children) CA 31-Jul-2009
Children appealed against dismissal of their care proceedings on the basis that the threshold had not been reached. The parents resisted.
Held: It could not be said that the decision so plainly wrong that the judge’s conclusion on the facts . .
CitedRe B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245323