Re H: Court of Appeal overturns final care orders made at issues resolution hearing

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against final care orders made in respect of two children at an Issues Resolution Hearing, emphasising the importance of proper reasoning and procedural safeguards even when proceedings conclude earlier than anticipated.

In Re H (Final Care Orders at IRH) [2025] EWCA Civ 1342, Lord Justice Cobb, delivering the leading judgement with which Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Green agreed, set aside final care orders concerning two boys, Y (aged 5) and N (aged 3), and substituted interim care orders pending further case management.

The care proceedings, issued by Chelmsford Family Court in early 2023, had reached their 128th week when listed for an IRH in June 2025. This was the twelfth hearing within proceedings involving filed documents exceeding 1,700 pages. At the IRH, the local authority and Children's Guardian encouraged Her Honour Judge Shanks to make final care orders, whilst the parents opposed this course and sought a final hearing. After hearing brief oral submissions, the judge made final care orders.

The father of N, who had also been the main carer for Y for a period, appealed with the mother's support. Permission was granted on 2 October 2025 and the appeal was expedited.

The factual background revealed that N had lived with his father from June 2022, when the parents separated. Y joined N in the father's care in September 2024 following a positive assessment by the local authority. Throughout this period, the father had been subject to regular hair strand testing which showed varying levels of drug use and chronic excessive alcohol consumption. However, by April 2025, the father claimed to have achieved sobriety. Both children were removed from his care on 20 December 2024 following concerns about alcohol consumption whilst caring for them.

The Court of Appeal identified several fundamental flaws in the judge's approach. Where proceedings conclude at an IRH, particularly in contested circumstances, there exists an obligation to provide clear reasons explaining both why the IRH has been used as a final hearing and the basis for the substantive final orders made. Whilst a judgement delivered at the conclusion of an IRH may reasonably be more concise than one following a contested final hearing, this does not relieve the judge of the obligation to give proper and clear reasons in a structured and logical manner.

The judge's rationale for concluding proceedings at the contested IRH was contained in two short sections, stating she had "more than sufficient evidence" on which to make a final decision. This failed to explain why it was unnecessary to determine whether the father had achieved and maintained sobriety, why the case could conclude before all evidence had been filed (including sexual risk assessments and DBS checks), how adoption under the contingency care plan could be proportionate, and how the summary outcome met the parents' rights to fair determination under Article 6 ECHR and rule 1 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

The judgement suffered from incurable flaws in its welfare analysis. Most significantly, the judge materially misunderstood the history, believing N had lived with his father for only three months in autumn 2024 when he had actually been in his father's sole care for more than two-and-a-half years. This material underestimate of N's experience undermined the ultimate conclusion.

Furthermore, whilst the judge was justifiably exercised by the appalling delay in resolving the litigation, she allowed this to dominate her thinking such that other welfare considerations were largely ignored. There was no indication she had considered the constituent elements of the welfare checklist, including the children's ascertainable wishes and feelings, the likely effect of changes in their circumstances, or proper evaluation of risks posed by the father in light of his asserted sobriety.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that although the father succeeded in setting aside the care orders, this should not encourage specific optimism regarding his long-term care ambitions. His case at the final hearing will require careful examination on up-to-date evidence.

The decision underscores that expedition in concluding care proceedings, whilst important, cannot override fundamental requirements of procedural fairness, accurate fact-finding, and comprehensive welfare analysis.