The Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the legal requirement that the permanent removal of children from settled kinship care must be based on proven facts and not on professional concern or suspicion.
Facts:
The case concerned three children, R (aged 8), S (aged 6), and L (aged 5). They were placed with their paternal grandparents in July 2022 with the agreement of their parents, who had caused them significant harm through substance abuse, domestic violence, and neglect. The children made good progress and became thoroughly settled with their grandparents, and there was no suggestion they had suffered any harm while in their care.
The Local Authority (LA) and the Children’s Guardian sought care orders to remove the children into long-term foster care, relying solely on the risk of future sexual harm posed by the grandfather or an uncle. The risk assessment was based on three sexual offence convictions against the grandfather dating from 1975 to 1984 (when he was aged 14 to 22), and two admitted sexual incidents involving the uncle (the father’s younger brother) in 2007 and 2015, although the uncle contested these. There were also reports of sexualised behaviour by the eldest child (R) at school in 2023/2024.
Expert psychological assessments rated the risk of sexual harm posed by both the grandfather and the uncle as ‘very low’. Despite this evaluation, an independent social worker later assessed the risk as having increased from ‘low to medium’ due to the opportunity to offend presented by them being the children’s carers. Despite acknowledging the children’s strong attachments, the high quality of care, and the family’s consistent cooperation with safety plans, the Recorder ultimately made care orders in June 2025.
Following the decision, the LA removed the children on 18 June 2025, without adequate introductions or preparation, despite being notified of the grandparents’ intent to appeal, and the guardian’s solicitor raising concerns. The initial foster placement collapsed quickly after an allegation of physical abuse was made by the youngest child (L) against the male foster carer, resulting in the children being moved again to a third, emergency foster home. The grandparents lodged their appeal on 26 June 2025.
Decision:
The CoA allowed the appeal and set the care orders aside and ordered the immediate return of the children to their grandparents, restoring the interim child arrangements orders. The Court found two fundamental errors in the Recorder’s judgement, specifically those of an unsound judicial risk assessment and excessive weight given to risk. The Recorder was found to have made a fundamental legal error by relying on unproven facts and unresolved suspicions when assessing the likelihood of future harm, violating established legal principles. The Recorder accepted the speculation of professionals about “patterns of repeated behaviour in the generations” without any evidence or finding that a relevant link existed between the grandfather’s, the uncle’s, or R’s behaviour.
The Recorder weighed the potential risk of sexual harm against the certain and devastating harm of removing the children from their settled, loving, and stable home of nearly three years. The Court concluded there was no justification, let alone a compelling one, for the care orders, especially given the clear evidence of the children’s welfare needs being met by the grandparents, the importance of maintaining family relationships, and the inherent uncertainty of long-term foster care (as illustrated by the subsequent hasty and failed placements). The care orders were therefore ruled unnecessary and disproportionate.
Implications:
This ruling establishes that a court cannot base a child’s removal on suspicions, concerns, or unproven allegations against family members. Any assessment of future risk must be founded solely on those facts proved to the Court’s satisfaction and the logical inferences drawn from those facts. For families in a similar situation, this means that an LA cannot simply present a “pattern” of behaviour across generations, or else rely on such ambiguous reports as a child’s reported behaviour at school, without a formal finding of fact to justify such a radical step as removal.
Furthermore, the judgement strongly reinforces the principle of proportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in terms of a right to a family life. The Court’s function is not to keep children “100% safe” at all costs, but rather to determine whether the proposed interference is necessary and proportionate. This provides strong support for kinship carers (like grandparents) who have provided a stable, loving, and effective placement over a sustained period.
The case also serves as a critical warning to LAs about their conduct, emphasising that the trauma and disruption caused by moving children from a settled family placement is a certain harm that must outweigh the potential harm of future risk. This requires careful and proportionate action, and critically, highlights the unacceptability of hasty removals, particularly when a legal appeal is pending.
