Court of Appeal refuses local authority's bid to block return of F, G and H to mother's care

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a local authority's application for permission to appeal against orders made by HH Judge Willans directing that three girls — F (14), G (nearly 5) and H (3½) — be returned to their mother's care under a supervision order. The judgement, handed down on 10 June 2026, is reported at [2026] EWCA Civ 713.

The proceedings arose from a prolonged history of domestic abuse by the father, a Grenadian national, and episodes of acute psychosis suffered by the mother, which on two occasions had necessitated the children's accommodation by the local authority. The parents subsequently separated, the father returned to Grenada, and the mother completed domestic abuse work through the Freedom Programme. By the time of the final hearing, her mental health had remained stable for the better part of a year.

At first instance, the local authority had sought care orders for all three children. Its plan was to place F in long-term foster care and to pursue placement orders for G and H with a view to adoption by a paternal aunt in Canada under the 1993 Hague Convention. Judge Willans declined to make placement orders, finding the Canadian plan unrealistic and outside the children's timescales, and instead directed a phased return to the mother supported by a two-year supervision order, a non-molestation order against the father, and a package of protective measures.

The local authority advanced ten grounds of appeal, distilled into two principal arguments: that the supervision order was ultra vires by reason of its two-year duration, and that the judgement was deficient in its analysis of the evidence, its welfare balancing exercise, and its engagement with legal principle — including Practice Direction 12J on domestic abuse.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Baker, Newey and Peter Jackson LJJ, rejected both arguments. On the question of analytical sufficiency, Baker LJ applied the well-established principles from Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407 and Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, finding that whilst the judgement's style was "unconventional even idiosyncratic", it possessed a strikingly clear structure, addressed all the required analytical stages, and demonstrated a careful and nuanced treatment of the central issues. The absence of a discrete section summarising the oral evidence was not, in itself, a deficiency, the court emphasised, noting that relevant evidence had been cited at appropriate points throughout and that no judge is required to recite every piece of material placed before them.

On the domestic abuse ground, Baker LJ found that the judge had been fully aware of the history — including the father's transmission to a social worker of a photograph depicting him beheading a goat with a machete, which the judge found was sent to threaten and intimidate — and had conducted a proportionate risk assessment consistent with PD12J. The local authority's submission that the judge had focused only on selected incidents and thereby understated future risk was rejected as without merit.

The ultra vires point was conceded. Under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989, a supervision order has effect for one year only, extendable on application but not initially beyond three years from the date of making. The approved final order, by specifying a two-year term, was accordingly unlawful. Baker LJ declined, however, to treat this as an indication of deeper analytical incoherence in the judgement, describing it instead as the sort of detail a judge may inadvertently overlook. Notably, the Family Public Law Portal had automatically generated a separate supervision order correctly limited to one year — prompting the court to observe, without resolving, the question of the legal status of a digitally generated order that is right in law but inconsistent with the judge's express terms.

Rather than granting permission on this discrete ground, the court directed the local authority to draw the discrepancy to the judge's attention so that the approved final order could be corrected. F had by that stage already returned to her mother's care; the appeal, as ultimately argued, concerned only G and H.

The judgement reinforces the width of the appellate margin afforded to trial judges in care proceedings, particularly where the judge has heard evidence over multiple days and has provided a reasoned explanation for departing from professional recommendations — as Judge Willans had done, grounding his departure on findings actually made rather than allegations raised and identifying the Canadian plan as falling outside the children's timescales.