![CA-2025-001586 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1362](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Judgment
Judgment
The short judgment is set out in nineteen paragraphs over 2½ pages. The judge first dismissed two preliminary applications:
the father’s application for strike out “on the grounds of procedural abuse, jurisdictional conflict, unresolved judicial recusal, and constitutional misconduct during live judicial review [sic] proceedings”;
the father’s application for the judge to recuse himself. The judge indicated that “there is nothing before me to suggest any form of judicial bias”; it was pointed out that the father had been a poor attender at court hearings, and “so it is difficult to know really on what basis this court has been biased and he certainly does not provide any examples of bias as far as I can see which could even legitimately be made out”.
The judge then addressed the non-attendance of the parents at the hearing, and provided a short resumé of the litigation, including the local authority’s application for a penal notice in relation to the prohibition on publication of information relating to these proceedings.
The judge then turned to the application itself. Crucially for present purposes, at [9] he addressed the issue of the threshold criteria:
“[9] With regards to the care and placement application, in terms of the legal position, I have to first of all consider whether the threshold for the making any orders as set out in section 31 of the Children Act is made out. In this case the father has disputed threshold. The mother has not responded. I have considered the threshold document. As I say, there has been a total lack of engagement on the part of the parents. The threshold document is relatively short and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the threshold is met out [sic] in this case”.
The judgment continues:
“[10] As threshold is crossed the court then has to consider what orders should be made having regard to all the circumstances of the case and with particular reference to section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, but as the local authority are seeking a placement order the factors set out in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 come into play. I remind myself that Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights is in check and I must ensure that as the making of a care and placement order is a radical intervention, the court should only do so if it is necessary to do so when nothing else will do. I have Re B, Re B-S, firmly in mind and when I consider [D]’s welfare interests I apply the welfare checklist within sub-section 2 of that Act and make my focus her welfare throughout her life rather than during her minority.
[11] It is quite clear having considered all the papers in this case and the Guardian’s report that really the court is only faced with two options; either a return of [D] to her parents’ care, or care and placement orders as sought by the local authority and supported by [D]’s Guardian.”.
The judge went on to consider the lack of any assessment of the father because he “has not engaged in these proceedings whatsoever”, and he referenced the “failed” parenting assessment of the mother: “The father has refused to engage in these proceedings and the mother’s engagement has been limited”. Later he said:
“[16] In terms of harm which [D] has suffered or is at risk of suffering, I have found threshold proved and the evidence from the professionals are [sic] that if [D] were to be returned to her parents’ care she would be at risk of significant harm”.
The judgment concludes:
“[18] Having considered all the realistic options in this case I am satisfied that the care order is the most appropriate order to make in this case.
[19] I endorse the care plans I have read and for the reasons I have given, [D]’s welfare requires the placement order the local authority seeks and as such I am compelled to dispense with the parents’ consent to that order. In my view, both orders are necessary and proportionate.”