High Court Balances Risks and Welfare in Care Order Case for Young Child H

Citation: [2024] EWHC 344 (Fam)
Judgment on


The case of The Mother & Anor v Shropshire Council & Anor involves a determination of the welfare and best interests of a young child named H, where there exists a history of familial troubles and parents with learning difficulties. The Court had to balance the risk to the child if remained with the family against the harm of removing H from her parents’ care. This analysis will dissect the key legal principles and caselaw that informed the High Court’s decision to retain the child under a Care Order at the parents’ home.

Key Facts

The case concerns a 2-year-old girl, H, whose family has been known to Children’s Services since 2002. With a history of allegations of sexual harm within the family and the cognitive challenges faced by the parents, the central issue was whether the risks to H remaining with her parents were sustainable under close monitoring or if removal was the more appropriate action. The fact-finding aspect related to an allegation of inappropriate behavior by H’s sibling, F, towards her. Although no sexual harm was found on the balance of probabilities, the risk remained a concern. The analysis had to then consider whether H’s best interests were served by remaining in the family home under a Care Order or being placed in long-term foster care.

Risk Assessment and Proportionality

The presiding judge applied the balance of probabilities standard in the fact-finding part of the case. The Court held that a clear association must exist between the facts and the asserted risk of significant harm under established case law – herein cited as Re A (A Child) ([2015] EWFC 11). Proof of “significant harm” required an “intense focus” on the likelihood and potential severity of risk, per Re F (Placement Order Proportionality) ([2019] 1 FLR 779).

The Role of Honesty in Parental Assessment

The case also touched on the response to parental dishonesty. Following Re F, the Court was reminded that while lies are deplorable, they are significant only as they impact the welfare of the child. The lies cannot be allowed to “hijack the case,” which indicates that whilst parental honesty is crucial, it is one factor among many in assessing a child’s welfare.

Welfare Principle and Care Orders at Home

Regarding decisions to remove a child from their parents, the Court referenced Re DE (A Child) ([2014] EWFC 6), underscoring that such removal must be justified by a compelling necessity for the child’s immediate welfare. Additionally, the Court highlighted its opposition to using Care Orders solely for providing services (Re JW [2023] EWCA Civ 944), suggesting that a care order at home was exceptional and permissible only where other remedies were not sufficient.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The case considerations were anchored on Article 8 ECHR, which emphasizes the right to family life, applicable through the Human Rights Act 1998. The Court needed to ensure that any decision should be proportional and in the best interests of the child, consistent with this Article and domestic law under the Children Act 1989.


The High Court concluded that, notwithstanding the risks associated with F and the other male family members, these risks were now more manageable with F no longer living at home. The judge was convinced by the progress made by the mother in understanding and managing risks. The learning difficulties of the parents, while challenging, did not preclude the mother from exercising her parental duties satisfactorily. The core finding was that the potential trauma H would experience from being removed from her home environment and placed into foster care outweighed risks present in leaving her with her parents under a high-supervision Care Order.


In judging The Mother & Anor v Shropshire Council & Anor, the Court carefully considered complex familial circumstances, balanced against the potential harms of removing a child from her home. By setting out the significant risks, analyzing the parents’ honesty, reviewing thresholds for harm, and acknowledging the principles enshrined in human rights legislation and domestic law, the Court adhered to the overriding requirement to act in the child’s best interests. The decision reaffirms the Court’s commitment to preserving family life where possible and ensuring that interventions are proportionate to the verified risks.

Related Summaries