Court of Appeal overturns care orders for three brothers

10 Feb 2025Court Report

Court of Appeal allows parents' appeal against care orders for their three children

Introduction

The Court of Appeal has overturned care orders for three brothers, aged 11, 9, and 16 months, who had been placed in foster care since October 2023. The parents appealed against the final care orders and a placement order made by Her Honour Judge Tyler in August 2024, seeking the return of their children. The appeal was resisted by the local authority and the Children's Guardian.

Background

The parents, originally from different West African countries, met and married in England. They had three children together, A1, A2, and A3, and the mother had three older children from previous relationships. In 2015, A2 sustained a skull fracture, leading to care proceedings and the temporary placement of the children in foster care. The parents separated, and A1 and A2 were eventually returned to the father's care under a supervision order.

In 2019, the father took A1 and A2 to Africa, where they stayed for four years. The parents continued their marriage but concealed this from professionals. In 2023, A3 was born, and the father returned A1 and A2 to England, placing them with the mother. The local authority intervened, and the children were placed in foster care.

The Judge's Decision

At the final hearing in July 2024, the judge approved a care plan for long-term foster care for A1 and A2 and a placement order for A3. The judge acknowledged the parents' positive engagement and the children's distress in foster care but concluded that the risk of harm outweighed the benefits of returning them to their parents.

The Appeal

The parents, represented by Mr Arron Thomas, argued that the judge's reasoning was flawed, lacking a clear assessment of risk and welfare considerations. The local authority and Children's Guardian defended the decision, citing risks of physical harm and emotional neglect. However, they acknowledged structural issues in the judgment.

Analysis

The Court of Appeal emphasised the need for rigorous reasoning in decisions involving the separation of children from their families. The judgment lacked a structured risk assessment and welfare evaluation, leading to the setting aside of the care and placement orders. The case was remitted for rehearing, with interim care orders revived.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal highlighted several factors favouring the children's return to their parents, including the absence of harm since 2015 and the children's distress in foster care. The court called for a thorough reassessment of the risks and welfare considerations, with a focus on the children's best interests.