The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Re T (children : risk assessment) 2025 EWCA Civ 93 has reaffirmed the fundamental principles of structured judicial reasoning, proportionality and rigorous risk assessments within care proceedings.
This case concerned three brothers whom were in foster care and had been in their placement since October 2023. The parents had appealed the final orders which had been made for two of the children to be placed in long term foster care and the youngest child to be placed for adoption.
In respect of the background to this case, one of the children had suffered from a skull fracture whilst the child was in mother’s care which lead to the care proceedings being issued. The children were placed in their foster care placements. The parents separated, and two of the children at that point returned to father’s care subject to a supervision order. The parents however continued their relationship, the third child was born in March 2023.
In October 2023, a further set of care proceedings were issued following a health visitor referral.
The appeal was opposed by the Local Authority and the Guardian. The Court of Appeal set aside the care and placement orders and remitted the case for there to be a re-hearing on the basis that the original judgment lacked structured analysis, a rigorous assessment of risk and a balanced proportionality evaluation. The Interim Care Orders were reinstated whilst the matter was reconsidered.
The original judgement did not properly understand the analysis required and no proper risk assessment was completed. The flaws of the judgment included the following:
- Lack of effective risk assessment
The type or the degree of risk and risk management had not been considered.
- Failure to assess the development of the risk over time
There were historic concerns but the Judge had not considered how the risk had evolved over time. There had not been consideration of if any risk had escalated over time and rather focused on the historic concerns.
- Comparison of alternatives
There was no consideration of alternate options for the children, the Judgment had been linear in its approach.
- Failure to assess parental roles separately
There had not been consideration of the different roles between the parents and whether or not one parent could offer protection to the children, and how any risks could be mitigated.
- Welfare checklist
There was no proper consideration of the welfare checklist, which contains important factors in respect of a child’s welfare, it is essential that these points are considered when considering a care and placement order.
- Proportionality
There was no final assessment of whether the order was proportionate in the circumstances when the final orders were made.
The Court of Appeal were able to provide critical guidance reinforcing that risk assessments must be vigorous, there needs to be judicial reasoning for decisions being made and the reasoning must be linked to the risk assessment and the welfare analysis completed. This case does strengthen the integrity of child protection and helps to ensure that there should only be intervention into the right for family life when it is truly necessary and proportionate.
For any further assistance in respect of legal matters involving care proceedings, then please contact a member of our dedicated public law team who will be happy to assist.
