Key Facts
- •Appeal against a decision authorizing the removal of three children from their maternal grandmother and uncle's care, based largely on hair strand drug testing reports.
- •Children had previously been placed with their grandmother under a section 20 Children Act 1989 order.
- •Hair strand tests revealed exposure to topiramate and Class A drugs; however, the significance of the results was disputed.
- •Further testing by a different laboratory yielded contradictory results, casting doubt on the initial findings.
- •The maternal grandmother and uncle had initially been uncooperative with assessments and hair testing, but later agreed to participate.
- •The judge's decision to remove the children was made at a short-notice hearing with limited evidence and without the input of the children and their grandmother.
Legal Principles
Hair strand drug testing results should not be viewed in isolation but in the context of broader evidence, including social work reports, medical evidence, and assessment of the donor's reliability.
London Borough of Islington v M and another [2017] EWHC 364 (Fam) and Re H (A Child: Hair Strand Testing) [2017] EWFC 64
Experts must fully and faithfully explain their findings in a way that is clearly understandable.
Re H (A Child: Hair Strand Testing) [2017] EWFC 64
Readers of hair strand test reports must understand the significance of the data and its place in the overall evidence, avoiding jumping to conclusions about drug use.
Re H (A Child: Hair Strand Testing) [2017] EWFC 64
Interim removal of a child is a sharp interference with family life and is only justified where necessary and proportionate to the risks.
Re C (A Child) (Interim Separation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1998
When a care plan changes, removal of a child should only be effected on notice to the family, except in emergencies where the child's safety and welfare require immediate removal.
Re DE [2014] EWFC 6
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The judge's decision to remove the children was based on a misunderstanding of the hair strand testing evidence, insufficient consideration of the broader evidence, and procedural unfairness.
That part of the order authorizing the removal of the children was set aside.
The evidence did not meet the high standard of justification required for interim removal, and the decision was neither necessary nor proportionate.