H (Children: Placement Orders), Re
[2023] EWCA Civ 1245
A (care - judgment on appeal), Re
19 May 2023
[2023] EWFC 84 (B)
Family Court
A little boy's parents fought a lot and were violent. A judge said he should live with his dad, even though the dad wasn't perfect. Another judge agreed, saying it was better for the boy to stay with his family, even if that meant taking some risks. The judges thought moving the boy to a new family would be very harmful.
Key Facts
- •Proceedings concern 5.5-year-old A, youngest son of the mother and father.
- •Father assaulted mother in May 2021, witnessed by A and his brother.
- •Mother suffered a brain aneurysm shortly after the assault.
- •Local authority involved with family since 2005, issued proceedings in June 2021.
- •Significant findings of domestic abuse and violence against the father were made.
- •Mother's mental health was a significant concern.
- •Parenting assessments concluded neither parent could meet A's needs.
- •A had been staying with his father increasingly over time.
- •District Judge Jenkins initially ordered A to live with father with supervision, while the local authority appealed.
Legal Principles
An appeal will be allowed if the Appellant can show that the decision of the Court below was wrong, or the decision was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
Rule 30.12(3) Family Procedure Rules 2010
Permission to appeal may only be given where (a) the Court considers the appeal would have a real prospect of success or (b) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
Rule 30.3(7) Family Procedure Rules 2010
Appellate courts should show deference to first instance judges' findings of fact and credibility assessments.
Re T [2015] EWCA Civ 453, Manzi v King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 182, Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, Re B [2013] UKSC 33
Courts should not sanction a care plan for adoption unless satisfied there is no other realistic option.
Paragraph 89 of the judgment
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's decision, while acknowledging significant risks associated with the father, was within his discretion. The judge considered the evidence carefully, weighed the pros and cons of various options, and prioritized A's need for stability and finality after prolonged proceedings. The potential harm of adoption outweighed the risks associated with a supervised placement with the father.
Child arrangements order for A to live with his father with time with mother.
The judge believed this arrangement, with a support package for the father, was the best option for A, balancing the need to protect him from further harm with his need for family connection.
Supervision order for the local authority.
To provide support and monitoring to the father and ensure the safety of A.