Re N (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541

This appeal considered the proportionality of a placement order in a complex emotional and cultural context. The primary concern was the carer’s dismissiveness of everyday risk, coupled with opposition to parenting advice. This was insufficient basis for a placement order.

Background

The case concerned L, a two-year-old boy. His mother, M, was raised in Japan. She had lived in the UK for a number of years in professional employment. She gave birth to L aged 55.

On L’s birth, nurses raised concerns about M’s ability to care for L, and involved the Local Authority. Home support proved insufficient. M agreed to be placed with L in a series of mother and baby foster units, for a period lasting 21 months.

Social workers noted that M was dismissive of risks to the child, such as being placed in an unstable high chair, or being left with a finger-toothbrush, which was a choking hazard. They reported that M often became angry when advised on her parenting, culminating in an incident where M was said to have dragged a social worker out of the room by her clothes.

The Care Proceedings

The Local Authority sought a placement order, on the basis of M’s inability to assess and manage risk. Additionally, M’s anger towards professionals posed the threat of emotional harm to L. Threshold was disputed.

M was assessed by an independent social worker, and a clinical psychologist. The ISW reported a serious danger of physical harm due to M’s difficulties in assessing risk. Additionally, M’s conflict with professionals prevented her from prioritising L’s needs. By contrast, the Psychologist was complimentary about M’s “focussed and organised” parenting. Her difficulties with the Local Authority were a reaction to the current proceedings, and a feeling of a lack of control. This was compounded by misunderstood cultural conflict.

The Judge found that threshold was met. Early childhood was a period of particular risk to children, with “potentially catastrophic” results. M was not alert to these risks. In oral evidence, she showed a lack of insight into the Local Authority’s concerns. Additionally, the risk of emotional harm to L from M’s emotional dysregulation was real and significant.

As for welfare, M had been intensely supervised for nearly 2 years, with limited progress. A great deal of future work would be required, including an unknown period of 24-7 care. This would not be possible given M’s relationship with the professionals. Therefore, no lesser order would suffice. A placement order was necessary and proportionate.

M appealed on three grounds: inadequate justification for the proportionality of a placement order; a failure to consider potential risk-mitigating measures; and a failure to reconcile the Psychologist’s assessment with the other evidence.

Appeal

The Court of Appeal adopted as their starting point Re B [2013] UKSC 33. Placement orders may only be made when necessary for the protection of the child, and proportionate to the needs of the situation. Alternative solutions should be explored, “particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do so”.

Here, the case was based on “a large number of small incidents”, and M’s “generally dismissive” reaction. Such circumstances “required particularly compelling justification” [45]. Generalised considerations of the risks of early childhood were insufficient. There was no reason to assume that L faced more severe consequences than other children. M’s lack of insight into concerns was relevant, but its significance depended on the nature of the concerns themselves [47]. It was relevant that M had been L’s primary carer for nearly two years, during which he had suffered no harm.

Further, insufficient consideration was given to other measures of risk management. It was wrong to assume that 24-7 support would be required indefinitely. M’s agreement to mother and baby placements showed she could abide by reasonable conditions going forward. Additionally, future arrangements such as nursery, school, and the role of potential nannies were relevant considerations [46].

Finally, close attention needed to be paid to M’s cultural background, and the context of proceedings. These factors were relevant to both to assessment of emotional harm, and to risk management. L had not suffered any emotional harm from previous incidents. Given the Psychologist’s evidence, there was no basis for the conclusion that M would remain combative in other contexts. The cultural context was complex, and this required particular caution [46-7].

In other circumstances, the Court would have substituted a supervision order. However, matters had moved on since the judgment. The case was remitted to the High Court for a rehearing.

Re N (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541 judgment

Sharan Bhachu represented the respondent Local Authority.

Case note provided by Jack Sheard.

10th Dec 2025

Sharan Bhachu

Call 1999