A mother has successfully appealed against care orders to remove three of her children and put them into foster care.  

The children were aged from 9 to 14 and the mother also had three more adult children who lived independently. 

The family had been known to the local authority for several years. Three of the children had been made the subject of supervision orders due to neglect and risk of sexual harm from one of the fathers (F2) of their half-siblings. 

In November 2019, the mother’s 22-year-old son (X) came to the family home and sexually abused one of his half-sisters.

Although, aware of this, the mother didn’t prevent him from staying in the house and continued to leave him with her children unsupervised. 

The local authority applied for care orders that approved a plan to remove the three children from parental care and place them in separate, long-term, foster placements. 

A judge granted the orders, but that decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. 

It summarised how to decide whether care orders in respect of the children were proportionate. It was necessary to assess: 

(a) the likelihood that, if left in the mother’s care, the children would suffer sexual harm 

(b) the consequences of such harm arising 

(c) the possibility of reducing or mitigating the risk of such harm 

(d) the comparative welfare advantages and disadvantages of the options presented. 

The judge had rightly observed that care orders were required to be proportionate, but that was not the end of the matter.  

Of particular significance was the fact that the judge had not mentioned the efficacy of an injunction which had been imposed on F2 and a non-molestation order which had been imposed on X. 

While the judge had dealt with the welfare checklist from the Children Act 1989, he had not dealt specifically with the range of powers available to the court. 

His judgment did not contain the critical side-by-side analysis of the available options or the evaluative, holistic assessment which the law required. 

Without that evaluative analysis, the Supreme Court could not determine whether the orders made were proportionate and necessary. The case would therefore be remitted for rehearing by a different judge.

Case citations: Supreme Court [2022] UKSC 17  [2022] 6 WLUK 109  Judge Lord Hodge DPSC; Lord Kitchin JSC; Lord Burrows JSC; Lord Hughes JSC; Dame Siobhan Keegan  

If you would like more information or advice about the issues raised in this article, or any aspect of family law please contact our expert legal team on 02080040065, by email at hello@southgate.co.uk or using the form below.

The contents of this article are general information only. The information in this article is not legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this article was published. Readers should not act on the basis of the information included and should obtain independent expert advice from qualified solicitors such as those within our firm.