D (Threshold Findings and Final Orders at IRH), Re

Under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, the court itself must be satisfied on the evidence that the threshold criteria are proved. Party agreement, procedural default, silence or non-attendance cannot replace that judicial determination. The judge must scrutinise the threshold statement, identify established facts, link them to the statutory grounds and record findings, even where the case is effectively uncontested.

An Issues Resolution Hearing may be used as a final hearing, but final care and placement orders require a clear judgment explaining the evidence, findings and reasons why the orders are necessary. Where the basis of the decision cannot be discerned, clarification is not an adequate substitute for an appeal. A standard order deeming threshold allegations accepted for failure to respond is unsafe.

Public-law proceedings concerning D, a child born in December 2024, were brought under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. On 2 June 2025, the Family Court sitting in Peterborough made a final care order under section 31 of that Act and a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The parents were absent from the hearing and had largely disengaged from the proceedings.

The parents appealed. Permission was granted on two grounds: insufficiency of the threshold findings and inadequacy of the reasons for the final orders. The central issues were whether the judge had independently proved and determined the threshold criteria, and whether final orders could properly be made at an Issues Resolution Hearing on the judgment given.

Appeal allowed unanimously. The care and placement orders were set aside, an interim care order was substituted, and the applications were remitted to the Family Court at Peterborough for urgent case management. The Court of Appeal made no comment on the ultimate merits or likely outcome of the applications.

1. Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 places the obligation on the court to be satisfied that the threshold criteria are proved. Threshold cannot be determinatively resolved by agreement, default or procedural silence. The judge must scrutinise the documents and evidence, make threshold findings and explain why the statutory test is met. This duty applies even where proceedings are effectively uncontested or the parents are absent.
2. The threshold statement was materially defective. It relied on reports or evidence from professionals instead of clearly pleaded established facts and failed to link some alleged facts to the statutory threshold grounds. The judge was not required to follow the proposed findings slavishly and could have reached a different conclusion on the evidence.
3. An Issues Resolution Hearing may conclude public-law proceedings, but final orders must be reached fairly and supported by a clear, even if concise, judgment. The judgment should identify the general allegations, the evidence relied upon, the findings made and the reasons for the orders. The judge’s knowledge of the case cannot substitute for expressed reasoning.
4. Because satisfaction of the threshold was not properly demonstrated, the consequential care and placement orders could not stand. Clarification was inappropriate because the omissions made it impossible to discern the basis of the decision.
5. Care and placement orders are life-changing and require rigorous justification. Permanent substitute care is justified only in exceptional circumstances, where overriding welfare requirements mean that nothing else will do.
6. The court expressed concern that paragraph 148 of the Standard Form Orders, deeming threshold allegations accepted when a parent fails to respond, may encourage an administrative approach or risk reversing the burden of proof. It suggested alternative wording and invited the Lead Judge of the Standard Orders Group to review the provision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2025] EWCA Civ 1362. Appeal allowed; the final care and placement orders were set aside, an interim care order was substituted and the applications were remitted for urgent case management.
• Family Court sitting in Peterborough — On 2 June 2025, HHJ Chaudhuri made final care and placement orders in respect of D.