NG23C50181 - [2025] EWHC 810 (Fam)

This is an application by A Local Authority (“LA”) for care orders in respect of four children – A (girl aged 7), B (boy aged 3), C (girl aged 2), and D (boy aged 1.5). A’s father is Y (the Third Respondent) (“R3”), the three younger children’s father is X (the Second Respondent) (“R2”). The First Respondent is the Mother of all the children (“M”).

The LA were represented by Sarah Dines, the M was represented by Ben Clulee, R2 was represented by Judy Claxton, R3 was represented by Emily Sherwood, and the Guardian was represented by Anita Thind.

Given that I will comment on a number of case management failings in this case below, it is only fair to say that the advocates for the LA, Guardian and Fathers have not been involved in the case before the final hearing.

This case is in Week 80, proceedings having commenced on 30 August 2023. R2’s position statement was uploaded to the portal on Friday 28 February 2024 at 3.44pm in which R2 accepted at least part of the threshold and that he was not currently in a position to look after the children; he therefore accepted that care orders should be made. In his oral opening at the hearing on 3 March Mr Clulee, on behalf of the M, made the same concession on threshold (which was accepted by the LA), but still sought for the children to return to her care. However, the M accepted that the case should be dealt with on submissions. R3 had accepted throughout that he was not in a position to care for A. Therefore the issue that I had to decide was a relatively short one.

It is to the highest degree unfortunate that the concessions on threshold which, as I will set out below, were inevitable and related to an incident on 18 June 2023, were not made much earlier. The judges involved and the advocates should have focused at a far earlier date on agreeing threshold, or determining it in an appropriately expeditious manner in order to allow the court and the parties to focus on the real issue, namely welfare.