H (Care Proceedings: Risk Assessment), Re

Where the statutory threshold for a care or supervision order is satisfied, the court must assess the child’s future care by considering the totality of the evidence. Recent improvements and protective factors must be analysed against the history underlying the threshold findings, with reasons explaining whether and how they reduce or manage future risks. The welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989 provides an important structure for that analysis. A bare assertion that the evidence has been kept in mind is insufficient. An appellate court should respect trial judges’ factual evaluations, but must intervene where the judgment does not explain why the risks have abated sufficiently to make the proposed placement safe.

The local authority appealed from the Family Court at Northampton, where HH Judge Wicks dismissed its placement-order application and directed that H should return to her mother under a supervision order. A temporary care order was made pending the appeal. H had previously been removed from the mother’s care after her four older children were made subject to care and placement orders because of exposure to abusive relationships. During the present proceedings, H had also been exposed to domestic abuse involving her father.

The mother had made substantial recent improvements, including remaining separate from the father, supporting his prosecution and engaging with domestic-abuse services. The local authority and children’s guardian maintained that the risks remained unacceptable. The central issue was whether the judge had adequately evaluated the current risks and explained how the recent improvements managed the risks identified by the threshold findings.

Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Baker delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Cobb agreeing. The matter was remitted to the Family Presiding Judge for allocation to another judge. The Court expressed no view on the eventual outcome.

1. The central task was the evaluation of risk. The judge was entitled to consider the mother’s recent improvements, but was required to analyse them in the context of her lengthy history of abusive relationships, exposure of children to harm and repeated failure to work openly with professionals. The threshold findings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 could not be left in one compartment while the recent positive factors were considered in another.
2. The judge had to consider the totality of the evidence, including the evidence of the mother, the allocated social worker and the guardian. He also had to explain why the social worker’s updated evidence of continuing risk was rejected. A statement that all the evidence had been kept in mind did not meet that requirement. The misstatement of the guardian’s recommendation compounded the deficiency.
3. The statutory welfare checklist under section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides the structure for the necessary risk analysis. The relevant factors included harm suffered or at risk of being suffered by the child, and the ability of relatives to provide a secure environment.
4. Consistently with Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, evidence must be considered in context rather than in compartments. The placement evaluation described in Re D (A Child: Placement Order) [2022] EWCA Civ 896 required assessment of the nature and likelihood of harm, its consequences, and the possibilities for reducing or mitigating the risk.
5. The appellate restraint described in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 remained applicable. Reasons need not be elaborate, but they must disclose the basis of the decision. Here the absence of an adequate explanation compelled intervention.
6. A party should consider clarification before appealing where the omission falls within the limited circumstances identified in Re YM (Care Proceedings)(Clarification of Reasons) [2024] EWCA Civ 71. Under Re O (A Child) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasons) [2021] EWCA Civ 149, clarification is inappropriate where the omissions make the basis of decision indiscernible or the analysis is otherwise deficient. The deficiencies here could not be repaired by clarification.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and the case remitted to the Family Presiding Judge for allocation to another judge. The Court gave no indication of the eventual outcome. [2025] EWCA Civ 727
2. Family Court at Northampton: HH Judge Wicks dismissed the placement-order application and made a supervision order for twelve months, directing H’s return to her mother. A care order under section 40 of the Children Act 1989 was made pending the renewed appeal.