F, G and H (Return Home Under Supervision Order), Re

A first-instance judgment in care proceedings need not follow a prescribed style. It is sufficient if, read as a whole, it identifies the issues and legal tests, engages with the key evidence, makes necessary findings, evaluates realistic options, and explains the outcome. An appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact, evaluations or inferences unless compelled to do so. A supervision order cannot initially be made for more than one year under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989. Any continuation must be pursued by application for extension.

Following care proceedings concerning three sisters, the Family Court at West London ordered their return to their mother under supervision and dismissed the local authority’s application for placement orders concerning the two younger children. The judge also made a non-molestation order and purported to impose a two-year supervision order. The local authority sought permission to appeal, alleging inadequate analysis of domestic abuse, future risk, professional evidence, welfare, proportionality and safeguards, and challenging the supervision order’s duration as ultra vires. By the Court of Appeal hearing, the eldest child had returned to her mother. The central questions were whether the judgment was legally inadequate and what consequence followed from the unlawful duration of the supervision order.

1. Application for permission to appeal refused. Baker LJ gave the reasons, with which Newey and Peter Jackson LJJ agreed. The Family Court judgment satisfied the core function of a judgment. It identified the facts, issues and legal principles, addressed the central evidence, made findings, carried out a comparative welfare and proportionality assessment, and explained why the children should return to their mother.
2. There is no prescribed judicial style. A judgment must be read as a whole. It need not recite every item of evidence, contain a separate section on each witness or argument, or reproduce professional recommendations in detail. Unless the contrary is clearly demonstrated, the appellate court will accept a judge’s statement that all the evidence was considered. The requirements identified in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 and Re B (A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407 concern substance, evaluation and explanation, not conformity with a fixed format.
3. The judge was entitled to assess the evidence of domestic abuse, the mother’s mental health, protective factors and future risk. His findings that the abuse was serious but not all-pervasive, that the risk should not be overstated, and that safeguards could reduce it were evaluative judgments reached after hearing the evidence. The Court of Appeal found no proper basis for intervention and no failure to comply with Practice Direction 12J.
4. The two-year supervision order was unlawful. Under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989, such an order initially lasts for one year. Paragraphs 6(3) and (4) permit extension, subject to the statutory limit. The error did not undermine the welfare analysis: a lawful one-year order could be maintained, with any further extension pursued on application.
5. It was unnecessary formally to grant permission and allow the appeal on that issue. The local authority was directed to draw the discrepancy between the family court office’s lawful one-year order and the two-year period in the approved final order to the judge’s attention, so that he could make the necessary amendment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow, refused. The Court directed that the discrepancy concerning the duration of the supervision order be drawn to the first-instance judge’s attention for amendment.
• Family Court at West London: HH Judge Willans made final orders returning the three children to their mother under supervision, dismissed the application for placement orders concerning the younger children, and purported to make the supervision order for two years.