DCC heavily involved in the now reported case of Re A and others (Care Orders at Home) [2025] EWCA Civ 901

Michael Jones KC leading Bansa Singh Hayer representing the father, Julia Cheetham KC leading Hannah Whelan representing the Children’s Guardian.

This is a textbook example of how procedural safeguards and statutory requirements ensure fairness and legality in family law decisions, especially when children’s welfare is at stake.

The case is referred to as Re A and others (Care Orders at Home) [2025] EWCA Civ 901

Background: 

• The case involves 5 children (A,B,C,D & E, AGED 13 to 8) who were subjects of care proceedings initiated due to allegations of physical abuse, parental non-agreement and safeguarding failures.
• Prior care proceedings in 2019 led to findings against the father for physical over chastisement, but no care orders were made at that time.
• In 2024, renewed concerns arose, particularly involving child A who went missing from home repeatedly, was involved in a violent altercation, and also attempted self-harm.

Proceedings:

• The local authority sought care orders with removal, while the parents opposed any order and refused cooperation.
• The final hearing resulted in the judge deciding to keep the children at home under care orders, concluding removal would be disproportionate.
• However, no care plans were in place for keeping the children at home, which legally invalidated the care orders under s31(3A) Children Act 1989.

Appeal Decision 

• Appeals brought by both the local authority and the father, arguing the care orders and an associated injunction were flawed.
• The CoA found -
  • The Judge erred in making care orders without valid care plans and without allowing the local authority to reconsider its position.
  • The injunction excluding the father from the home was improperly issued under the inherent jurisdiction without meeting the statutory conditions: it was replaced by a lawful exclusion order under s38A Children Act 1989.

Outcome:

• Final care orders set aside.
• The matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
• Interim care orders were issued and father was lawfully excluded from the family home under statutory provision.

Link to the judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/901.html