Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Re H continued (Risk of Harm)

[2024] EWHC 344 (Fam)
A little girl's family has a lot of problems, including past accusations of abuse. There were new accusations against an older brother, but it wasn't proven. The judge decided it's better for the little girl to stay with her parents, even though it's risky, because taking her away might be worse for her in the long run. The parents need more help and supervision.

Key Facts

  • H, a 2-year-10-month-old girl, remained in her parents' care despite Local Authority (LA) proceedings since birth.
  • Parents have learning disabilities/difficulties.
  • Allegations of inappropriate touching of H by her older brother F.
  • Conflicting witness testimonies and cognitive challenges of witnesses hampered fact-finding.
  • Court of Appeal previously remitted the case due to insufficient scrutiny of parental support.
  • A Care Order at home was in place with a Safety Plan.
  • Extensive family history of concerns regarding child protection and sexual abuse allegations.
  • Positive reports on H's development and well-being.
  • LA sought to remove H due to perceived unmanageable risks.

Legal Principles

Burden of proof on the LA; standard of proof is balance of probabilities; holistic weighing of evidence; consideration of witness vulnerabilities and memory.

General principles of family law fact-finding

Lucas direction: considering the reasons for potential lies in witness testimony.

R v Lucas [1981] QB 720

Removal of a child from parental care requires high standard of evidence and justification; rigorous analysis of all options.

Re DE (A child) [2014] EWFC 6; s.33(4) Children Act 1989; Article 8 ECHR

Need for clear and transparent process before removal, with parental involvement.

G v N County Council [2008] EWHC 975

Assessment of risk: intense focus on type, likelihood, and consequences; lies are significant only insofar as they affect child welfare.

Re F (Placement Order Proportionality) [2019] 1 FLR 779; Re Y (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1337; Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11

Tolerance of diverse parenting standards; state's positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to provide support enabling children to remain with parents; s.17(1) Children Act 1989.

Re L (A Child) (Care Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1FLR 2050; Re D (A Child)(No.3) [2016] EWFC 1

Care orders at home should be rare; other means of support should be considered unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Re JW [2023] EWCA Civ 944

Risk assessment must be based on proven facts, not mere possibilities.

Re H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm) [2023] EWCA Civ 59

Outcomes

Care Order at home remains the proportionate outcome.

Balancing of risks: risk to H of remaining at home vs. risk of long-term foster care; mother's efforts to be protective; need for continued support and safety plan; exceptional circumstances.

Finding of fact: Inappropriate touching of H by F was not proven to the balance of probabilities.

Witness credibility issues; lack of corroborating evidence.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.