Re C: Court of Appeal criticises rushed interim care decision in residential assessment case

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in Re C (A Child)(Interim Separation: Residential Care) [2025] EWCA Civ 1618, finding that a circuit judge failed to undertake the necessary anxious scrutiny when refusing a local authority's application to separate an eight-month-old child from her parents at an interim stage.

C was born in April 2025 to parents aged 30, both with significant learning difficulties and a troubling history. Between them, the parents had nine older children, all removed from their care following findings of neglect, emotional harm and physical abuse. The father held a conviction for hitting one of his older children in 2021.

Following C's birth, an interim care order was made and a section 38(6) residential assessment was directed at Oak Lodge. The assessment revealed mixed results across the ParentAssess Framework. Whilst some 'green' and 'amber' areas showed potential for improvement with support, numerous 'red' areas raised serious concerns about the parents' capacity to meet C's health needs, establish routines, and manage her diet and behaviour.

The final assessment report, completed on 12 August 2025, concluded that the parents could not provide long-term care for C, though "ongoing staff supervision within a structured and protected environment remains necessary to ensure [C]'s welfare".

The challenged decision

On 14 August 2025, the local authority applied to separate C from her parents. At the hearing on 16 September 2025, HHJ Thomas refused the application in a brief ex tempore judgement running to just nine paragraphs over one and a half pages.

The judge acknowledged he had not read the application form and made no reference to the social worker's supporting statement. His reasoning focused primarily on whether the five-point test from Re C (A Child)(Interim Separation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1998 was satisfied, emphasising repeatedly that if Oak Lodge was not requiring the parents to leave, the test could not be met.

Court of Appeal's analysis

Lord Justice Cobb, giving the leading judgement, identified fundamental deficiencies in the judge's approach. Whilst acknowledging the pressures on Family Court judges and the value of focused case management, the court found the judge had proceeded "too quickly and cursorily to a firm decision" without the "anxious consideration" required in such cases, as articulated in Re C [2020] EWCA Civ 257.

Critically, the judgement contained no reference to the section 1(3) Children Act 1989 welfare checklist by name or characteristics, no explicit reference to the paramountcy principle, and demonstrated no meaningful balancing exercise. The judge failed to analyse the 'red' areas of concern in the Oak Lodge assessment or consider the emotional and psychological impact on C of receiving inconsistent care over the seven months until the final hearing.

The court emphasised that whilst Re C 2019 sets justification and proportionality requirements appropriately high, it does not relieve the court of undertaking a balancing exercise "essentially and closely focused on the welfare of the subject child". The judge appeared to treat the five-point test as his "sole point of reference" rather than conducting the required welfare analysis.

Implications and disposal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the application for re-hearing before a different circuit judge, with directions for a hearing in January 2026. The court declined to substitute its own decision, noting the incomplete evidential picture.

The case serves as a reminder that interim care applications involving infant separation require comprehensive welfare analysis, proper engagement with the evidence, and cannot be determined solely by rigid application of appellate guidance without careful evaluation of all relevant factors.

Copyright & permissions