High Court judge spells out lessons on case management from care case that reached 80 weeks before final hearing

The Family Division of the High Court has made care orders in respect of four children in a case that reached 80 weeks before final hearing, with the judge warning that threshold should have been agreed at a “much earlier date” to allow the court to focus on welfare.

In A Local Authority v The ‘Mother’, Father ‘X’, Father ‘Y’ and others [2025] EWHC 810 (Fam), Mrs Justice Lieven observed: “It is to the highest degree unfortunate that the concessions on threshold which were inevitable and related to an incident [in 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.”

The case concerned four children – A, B, C and D – who were aged between seven and one and a half years old.

A’s father was the Third Respondent (R3), and the three younger children’s father was the Second Respondent (R2). The First Respondent was the mother of all the children (M).

The mother and children had been known to Children's Services since 2021, in part because of M’s history of entering relationships in which domestic abuse was a feature, including with R2 and R3.

Between 2019-21, A lived with her father, R3. However, R3 then had a mental health crisis and was admitted to hospital, following which A had to move to the care of her mother.

In December 2022 A, B and C were placed on a Child Protection Plan because M was said to be not attending antenatal appointments.

In June 2023 there was a serious incident between M and R2. M told the police that she had been assaulted by R2, dragged to the floor by her hair and punched in the mouth and had a bust lip. She also made a number of allegations about R2’s past conduct. The children were in the house throughout the incident. The judge also noted M was three months pregnant at this point. R2 was arrested.

The mother and the children were placed in a refuge. In August, M left the refuge and she and the children moved back to live with R2.

Proceedings were commenced later that month. A parenting assessment was undertaken of M and R2 in September 2023.

The fourth child, D, was born in December 2023.

Lieven J said: “26 weeks expired on or about 28 February 2024. It is difficult to see why proceedings could not have been completed on or very near this date. This is a case where further events happened throughout the proceedings, as will often be the case in proceedings of this type, and that became an excuse for a sequence of adjournments and ineffective Issue Resolution Hearings (IRHs).”

Between April – May 2024 the younger children moved to Z’s care - a relation of R2. In late August 2024, A moved to her current foster carers.

Outlining the parties’ positions, Lieven J noted that the local authority sought care orders in respect of all the children, with them remaining in their current placements.

She said: “The LA point not merely to the history of very serious domestic abuse between M and R2, but also M’s chaotic lifestyle with frequent moves of home with the children; her failure to get A to school regularly and her cannabis use which they say impacted on her parenting.

“The LA point to the fact that the M has moved very frequently, giving the children little or no stability in their lives before they were removed from her care. They also say that the parents provided little stimulation to the children, and it is posited that may be a reason for B’s developmental delay.”

The local authority also referred to M and R2’s failure to regularly attend contact and the impact this had on the children.

The mother wished for the children to return to her care.

At the final hearing, Lieven J noted that the case was in week 80, proceedings having commenced in August 2023.

She said: “R2’s position statement was uploaded to the portal on Friday 28 February 2024 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, [counsel for 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, 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.”

Dealing first with the welfare issues of the case, the judge said: “I have no doubt that it is in all the children’s best interests for them to be made subject to care orders and for A to remain with her foster carer, and the younger children to remain with Z.

“The M (and R2) are not in a position to care for the children. It is clear that M loves the children, and that she has a genuine desire to care for them. However, her chaotic lifestyle, with multiple moves both before and since the children were removed from her care, is inimical to meeting their needs.

“There is also very significant evidence of the level of the impact of domestic abuse on the children.”

The judge made the orders sought by the local authority.

Turning to case management, Lieven J outlined a number of lessons to be learnt from the problems that had arisen in the case.

She said: “Firstly, the case highlights the great importance of judicial continuity, for proper case management. […] Wherever possible, one judge should be allocated to a case and do whatever of the hearings they can.

“Secondly, together with judicial continuity goes the oversight of the Guardian and the Guardian’s solicitor. The Guardian has a critical role in safeguarding the best interests of the children, including doing what s/he can to avoid or minimise delay. The Guardian should have been strongly raising issues such as the M’s failure to file a statement, and the listing of a final hearing when threshold had not been settled.”

“Thirdly, this is a case where threshold should either have been agreed or determined at a much earlier date, so that all parties and most importantly the Court should focus on the real issue which was welfare. It was in my view inevitable that threshold was crossed, not least from the content of the videos of the events [in June 2023]. If the M and R2 would not agree it, then the Court should have determined threshold at an IRH/early final hearing on threshold.

“Fourthly, the matter should not have been set down for a final hearing before an effective IRH. This links to the need to sort out threshold at an earlier date.”

Finally, Lieven J outlined a “failure” by lawyers to file the relevant documents on the FPL Portal at the proper time, which placed a “wholly unreasonable burden on the judiciary”.

Lottie Winson