L-G (Children: Risk Assessment)

When the risk of future harm may determine a child’s welfare, the court must conduct a solid and fact-specific assessment. It should identify the type, likelihood and severity of the harm, and consider whether protective measures can reduce either its occurrence or its consequences.

The assessment must address the real-world circumstances in which the perpetrator could gain access to the child and whether those circumstances could arise undetected. A parent’s lack of insight into the danger is relevant but cannot, without more, determine the outcome. The court must make necessary findings about the parent’s reliability and evaluate proposed safeguards before concluding that removal is required.

The mother appealed against orders removing two children from her care. O was placed with her father under a child arrangements order, while Y became subject to a special guardianship order in favour of his maternal grandfather. The Family Court considered that Y’s father posed a serious risk and that the mother did not adequately recognise that danger.

Apart from that risk, every welfare consideration strongly favoured the existing arrangements. The children were thriving in the mother’s care, but the orders separated them and left extensive maternal contact subject to uncertain supervisory arrangements.

The principal issue was whether the Family Court had adequately assessed the circumstances in which the identified danger could affect these children, the mother’s reliability and the effectiveness of available protective measures.

1. Appeal allowed. The risk assessment was incomplete to such an extent that the orders could not stand. The local authority’s application for a supervision order was remitted for rehearing before a judge nominated by the Family Presiding Judge.

2. The risk of harm is one factor in the welfare checklist, although it may be decisive. Where the proposed outcome is finely balanced, the assessment must be solid and must address the type of possible harm, the likelihood of its occurrence, the severity of its consequences and whether its occurrence or consequences can be reduced. Those broad questions, identified in Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761, must be tailored to the individual case.

3. The Family Court correctly recognised that Y’s father was capable of seriously harming a child in his care. It did not, however, sufficiently examine the settings in which he would have a realistic opportunity to harm these children, the likelihood that such circumstances would arise undetected, or the practical protection available through court obligations, family vigilance and local authority powers.

4. The finding that the mother lacked insight could not by itself determine the outcome. The court needed to assess the real-world consequences of that deficiency. It also needed a clear finding on whether she had complied with her protective undertaking during the proceedings. Mere references to concerns could not establish that she was untrustworthy. The proposed protective measures required evaluation and, if rejected, an explanation of why they would fail.

5. The children were to return to their mother pending rehearing. Their welfare and the requirements of justice outweighed the limited short-term disruption. An interim supervision order was to be made, with agreed arrangements keeping Y’s father away from the children except during supervised contact with Y.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed in [2025] EWCA Civ 60. The orders were set aside, the supervision-order application was remitted for rehearing, and the children were returned to the mother under interim protective arrangements.
2. Family Court at Canterbury: Her Honour Judge Sarah Davies ordered that O live with her father and made a special guardianship order placing Y with his maternal grandfather. No reported or neutral citation is stated.