HomeFamily Law Experts and SpecialistsThe Family Procedure Rules 2010Child Protection ProceduresFamily Law UpdatesFamily Law Successful AppealsFamily Law PrecedentsChild Protection VideosChildren Social Work UpdatesTinadew Blog



Court of Appeal; s.3(1) CA 1989, ss. 21, 24(2)(a), 25(2), 38 & 44 of ACA 2002, criteria for interlocutory injunction in public law; jurisdiction of County Court to grant foster carer an injunction preventing the Local Authority from placing a child where there is a Placement Order enabling the Local Authority; the stage when a child is placed for adoption; the procedure to be followed by adoption agency subsequent to the making of a Placement Order. Procedure for foster carer’s application for an Adoption Order. Foster carer’s failure to seek leave of the Court to apply for a revocation of a Placement Order. Foster carer’s failure to give notice of intention to adopt, effect of non-compliance.

Coventry City Council v PGO & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 729

Child Evidence
A 13-year-old girl, sought to attend the hearing of an application by her local authority to keep her in secure accommodation for three months. Court held that ....there was no convincing evidence that attendance would be psychologically harmful to K, and because the practical difficulties were manageable..........there is no reason why the court should be privileged from having to witness and deal with situations that social workers have to handle day in, day out.
in Re LM (A Child) the judge made an order that L should attend for the purpose of giving evidence via video link in the care proceedings. L's guardian applied for permission to appeal the decision. The appeal was dismissed inter alia that the likely adverse consequences to L of her giving oral evidence are not of such gravity as to amount to oppression.

Re K (A Child) [2011] EWHC 1082 Fam (16 May 2011)


Re LM (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 9 (19 January 2007)

Compensatory Cost
In Re X Y, the Respondents submitted and it was accepted by the Court that the local authority's conduct of its obligations as to disclosure fell outside the band of what can be described as "reasonable conduct".....that the principal responsibility for failing to identify and disclose the relevant documents in this case rests with the local authority and was attributable, to a considerable extent, to the chaotic and disorganised way in which its records were kept. The documents produced halfway through the hearing and inserted in bundle BB included material that was obviously highly relevant, ......The local authority's failure to disclose certain documents in bundle was manifestly unreasonable.

BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET case, allegation of misconduct against local authority team manager; at a subsequent hearing the judge ordered the local authority to pay (1) 50% of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th to 6th and 7th Respondents' costs of the proceedings as assessed by the Legal Services Commission  and (2) the costs of preparing all transcripts ordered to be produced within the proceedings.]

Re X, Y, Z (Minors) EWHC 1267 (Fam)


Bath & North East Somerset Council v A Mother & Ors [2008] EWHC B10 (Fam)

 On the specific facts involving tradition and cultural sensitivities, before the Court could properly determine the likelihood and severity of allegedly adverse consequences of disclosure, the court should permit completion of a professional risk assessment in relation to them.

A Mother v A Father & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1057

Emergency Protection Order
"Before public authorities have recourse to emergency measures in such delicate issues as care orders, the imminent danger should be actually established. It is true that in obvious cases of danger no involvement of the parents is called for. However, if it is still possible to hear the parents of the children and to discuss with them the necessity of the measure, there should be no room for an emergency action, in particular when, like in the present case, the danger had already existed for a long period."

Re X Council v B & Ors [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam)


European Convention on Human Rights
Interim Care Order - Articles 6 and 8
Procedural fairness is something mandated not merely by Art 6 but also by Art 8. To an extent – and whilst the care proceedings themselves are on foot – Arts 6 and 8 march side by side ……..But in relation to the procedural requirements imposed by Art 8, it also important for local authorities to appreciate, as the Court said in Re L at paragraph [88], that:'The protection afforded ….. by Art 8 …… is not confined to unfairness in the trial process… Art 8 guarantees fairness in the decision-making process at all stages of child protection.'

Westminster City Council v RA & Ors [2005] EWHC 970 (Fam)

Learning Disability
Appeal Court upheld a Care Order; inter alia, mother received intensive support for a period of time and it shored up her own capacity, but that incapacity is not because she has borderline Learning disability but is due to her inability to provide consistent and good enough parenting and her inability to form relationships which last and when they break down she quickly seeks a replacement.  

Re G (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 1054

Leave to withdraw Care Order application
There were cost implications, in a case where within the six months of commencing proceedings the local authority twice sought to persuade the court to authorise the immediate interim removal of the children from the care of their parents, and after six months the local authority sought leave to withdraw the proceedings in their entirety.

Re X, Y and Z [2010] EWHC B12 (Fam)

Legal Undertakings
Inter alia, the Court emphasised how the use of undertaking coupled with time limit can be an effective tool in litigation and gave an example: "We invite you to give an undertaking that you will take no steps to place (the child) with prospective adopters pending the hearing of our client's application. If that undertaking is not received by 10.00 am on 18 January, we shall apply without notice in the first instance to the County Court for an order in those terms."

Re F (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 439

Local Authority accommodation

Local authorities have to look after the children in their area irrespective of where they are habitually resident. They may then pass a child on to the area where he is ordinarily resident under section 20(2) or recoup the cost of providing for him under section 29(7). But there should be no more passing the child from pillar to post while the authorities argue about where he comes from."


GC v LD - A child was placed with PGM by the local authority but ceased to be a looked after child upon the making of the residence order in favour of PGM. Therefore the PGM will look to the authority for support in relation to a proposed special guardianship order.

A v Leicester City Council & London Borough of Hillingdon [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin)



GC v LD & Ors [2009] EWHC 1942 (Fam)