Your browser is out of date or unsupported. As a result, some elements of this website may not be fully functional. For the best possible user experience, it is recommended that you use the latest version of Chrome, Firefox or Microsoft Edge.
TV Edwards Solicitors Logo
Call us on: 020 3440 8000
  • About Us
    • Whitechapel Office
    • Clapham Junction Office
    • What Our Clients Say
    • Cybercrime and Fraud Warning
    • Pricing
    • Make a Secure Payment
  • Services
    • You & Your Family You & Your Family
      • Family and Children Law
      • Wills and Probate
      • Personal Injury
      • Dispute Resolution
      • Mental Health
      • Court of Protection
      • Community Care
      • Criminal Defence
    • You & Your Property You & Your Property
      • Residential Property
      • Property Disputes
      • Housing
    • You & Your Business You & Your Business
      • Commercial Property
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Business Crime and Fraud
      • Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing
    • _
  • Our People
    • Partners and Management Team
    • Family and Children
    • Property
    • Wills and Probate
    • Court of Protection
    • Criminal Defence
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Personal Injury
    • Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing
    • Mental Health
    • Community Care
    • Housing
  • News and Blogs
  • Careers
TV Edwards Solicitors Logo
  • You & Your Family
    • Family and Children Law
    • Wills and Probate
    • Personal Injury
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Mental Health
    • Court of Protection
    • Community Care
    • Criminal Defence
  • You & Your Property
    • Residential Property
    • Property Disputes
    • Housing
  • You & Your Business
    • Commercial Property
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Business Crime and Fraud
    • Alcohol & Entertainment Licensing
  • About Us
    • Whitechapel Office
    • Clapham Junction Office
    • What Our Clients Say
    • Pricing
    • Make a Secure Payment
  • Our People
    • Community Care
    • Court of Protection
    • Criminal Defence
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Family and Children
    • Housing
    • Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing
    • Mental Health
    • Partners and Management Team
    • Personal Injury
    • Wills and Probate
    • Property
    • Support Team
  • News and Blogs
  • Careers
Call us on: 020 3440 8000
×
  • Divorce
    • Divorce process
    • Finances
    • Civil partnerships
    • Child arrangements
  • Children
    • Child arrangements
    • Social services
    • Adoption
    • Special guardianship
    • Relocation
    • Abduction
  • Modern Parenting
    • Surrogacy
    • Fertility
    • Donor conception
    • Co-parenting
    • Adoption
  • Unmarried couples
    • Pre nups, post nups and pre partnership agreements
    • Cohabitation agreements
    • Separation
    • Finances for children
  • Domestic abuse
    • Domestic abuse
    • Forced marriage
    • FGM
×

Start typing to search.

    ×
    TV Edwards Solicitors Logo

    020 3440 8000

    enquiries@tvedwards.com

    Find us at Whitechapel and Clapham Junction

    Contact Us

    Please enter your first name(s).
    Please enter your surname.
    Please enter a valid email address.
    Please enter your contact number.
    Please select an option.
    Please enter a message.

    We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy.

    TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

    Re H-W (Children) Supreme Court judgment on the proportionality of care orders

    *TW: discussing child sexual abuse The Supreme Court handed down judgment on 15 June 2022 in this important case considering...

    supreme court judgment

    Back to News & Blogs 5th July 2022

    Blog author thumbnail
    Claire Longland
    Children Law Family

    *TW: discussing child sexual abuse

    The Supreme Court handed down judgment on 15 June 2022 in this important case considering the proportionality of final care orders.

    The appeal concerned care orders made in relation to three children with care plans for their removal from their mother’s care into separate long term foster placements. The threshold criteria centred around one of the children having been sexually abused by an adult half sibling, a risk of future sexual harm and a failure to protect the children by their parents.

    The Supreme Court distilled the central issue of the appeal to be:

    In making care orders for the removal of three of the first appellant’s children into foster care:

    1. The proportionality question: In order to decide whether those orders were proportionate, was it necessary as a matter of law to assess the likelihood that, if left in the first appellant’s care, (a) 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; and (d) the comparative welfare advantages and disadvantages of the options presented; and
    2. The balancing exercise question: Did the judge err in law by failing to make any or any proper assessment of those matters?”

    It was set out that there were three stages for a judge to consider in most applications for a care order namely:

    1. Finding the relevant primary facts;
    2. Determining whether the legal threshold for the making of a care order has been crossed (section 31(2)(a) Children Act 1989); and, if yes, then
    3. Deciding the proper order to make (the disposal or welfare stage).

    Analysis of potential orders

    It was not argued that the assessment of the risk of harm to the children in their mother’s care was wrong, but that the judge at the first instance failed to consider at the third of these stages whether making care orders removing the children from their mother’s care was a proportionate response to that risk. It was argued that to assess this it was necessary to consider the harm the children would suffer as a result of being removed from their mother and placed in separate placements with limited contact against their wishes. This required a clear analysis of other potential orders which could be made. It was also relevant that a non-molestation order was in place which prevented the adult sibling, amongst other things, from returning to the family home.

    The family courts already have clear authority that a care order should only be made if it is necessary. The case of Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 restated the longstanding provision in English family law that the aim of the court must be to make the least interventionist order possible. The case of Re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 adopted the analysis of McFarlane LJ (as he then was) in Re G:

    “The judicial task is to evaluate all the options, undertaking a global, holistic and … multi-faceted evaluation of the child’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option …

    ‘What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.’”

    Judgment

    What the Supreme Court considered in this case was that although the judge’s consideration of the facts and evidence was thorough and he directed himself that his orders must be proportionate, he did not go far enough. There must be a critical side-by side analysis of the available options before the Court and an evaluative holistic assessment as set out in Re B-S.

    “Whilst the judge has identified the risk of sexual harm as satisfying the threshold criteria for intervention, there is no evaluation of the extent of the risk of significant harm by way of sexual harm, nor of any available means by which the risk might be reduced for each child. Nor is there any comparison of the harm which might befall the children if left at home with the harm which would be occasioned to them if removed and separated not only from the parents but from each other.”

    “…The process adopted by the judge is flawed as it did not adequately assess the prospects of various options to mitigate the risk of sexual harm. The judge does not state why the emotional damage that each of the very different subject children would suffer under a care plan which separated them from their mother, from their stepfather and no less importantly from their siblings, was proportionate to and necessitated by the identified risk of sexual harm from A, when no instances of harm had occurred since November 2019 and where a protective framework of non-molestation and interim supervision orders was in place.”

    What can we take from the judgment?

    This case is significant and will require judges to consider and carefully articulate in any future judgment where care orders are made:

    1. The risk
      1. The extent of the risk
      1. Any means by which the risk could be reduced
      1. A comparison of the harm should the child remain at home with the harm caused as a result of removal
      1. That any identified harm of removal from the family unit is proportionate to and necessitated by the risk of harm identified at 1-3 above

    More Articles

    Article Image

    Business Contracts in Uncertain Times: 4 Terms with increasing importance in 2023

    21st March 2023
    Article Image

    TV Edwards obtains damages for breach of children’s rights to education

    13th March 2023
    Article Image

    Who needs to pay for their care package?

    13th March 2023
    Article Image

    Doctrine of Frustration

    10th March 2023
    Article Image

    Life as a trainee solicitor at TV Edwards LLP

    27th February 2023
    Article Image

    Estimating the quantity of drugs sold

    15th February 2023
    All Articles 

    Contact Us

    020 3440 8000|enquiries@tvedwards.com|Whitechapel Office|Clapham Junction Office

    020 3440 8000
    enquiries@tvedwards.com
    Whitechapel Office
    Clapham Junction Office

    Cyber Essentials Accreditation Logo
    Lexcel Logo
    The Legal 500 – The Clients Guide to Law Firms
    Chambers 2021 Logo

    © 2023 TV Edwards LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (465533) and is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number 0C325696. Details of the SRA Code of Conduct can be found at sra.org.uk. Registered name: TV Edwards LLP. Registered Office: 35-37 Mile End Road, London, E1 4TP.

    TV Edwards Solicitors Logo

    Contact Us

    Call us on: 020 3440 8000

    View our Whitechapel office

    View our Clapham Junction office


    • Quick Links
      • Pricing
      • Pay Online
      • Careers with TV Edwards
    • Insights
      • Blogs
    • Regulatory
      • Legal Disclaimer
      • Terms of Business
      • Accessibility
      • Privacy Policy – Website Users
      • Privacy Policy – General
      • Cookies
      • Complaints Procedure

    Find us on:


    TV Edwards Solicitors Logo
    • Divorce
    • Children
    • Modern Parenting
    • Unmarried couples
    • Domestic abuse
    © 2022 TV Edwards LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (465533) and is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number 0C325696. Details of the SRA Code of Conduct can be found at sra.org.uk. Registered name: TV Edwards LLP. Registered Office: 35-37 Mile End Road, London, E1 4TP.
    Use of Cookies

    Our website requires the use of cookies. Enabling all cookies makes sure the website works as smoothly as possible, and also helps us to improve it. Some cookies are activated by default but tracking cookies aren't switched on without your consent.

    For our full policy, visit our cookies page.


    Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences.

    Necessary

    Necessary cookies enable core functionality of the website, including security, SRA Regulationand reCAPTCHA form verifications. It is possible to disable these cookies in your browser settings, but this could affect the functionality of the website.


    Recommended
    Off On

    Recommended cookies improve your experience of our site by helping to display our latest client reviews and embedded maps of our office locations. You can find full details on Google's privacy policy here.


    Analytics
    Off On

    We'd like to use analytics services provided by Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity and Ruler Analytics to collect anonymous information from our visitors. The data we collect will help us to improve our website and services. Learn more about how we use these services and our commitment to safeguarding data in our Cookie Policy.

    Settings Save & Close
    020 3440 8000