Mother’s appeal to keep children rejected

Children|October 3rd 2017

The Court of Appeal has rejected a woman’s bid to keep her two children.

The woman lived with her children at her mother’s house. The father of the seven year-old girl and 11 year-old boy did not live with them but did have regular contact. Both parents reportedly had “a very significant learning disability”, although the recently published judgment did not go into further detail on that point. Additionally, the father had previously been convicted of “sexual offences against young girls” but was “thought to be at low risk of re-offending” the Court heard.

Social services at Devon County Council had been concerned about the wellbeing of the children for a number of years. They believed the two youngsters were being neglected and were “failing to thrive”.

At an initial Family Court hearing in Plymouth, the Judge declared that the two children were being “dragged and held back” by their parents’ “significant difficulties” and were “likely to suffer significant harm” as a result. Specifically he said this would come from “lack of basic care, risk of sexual harm and a lack of emotional attunement”. He therefore ruled that they should be placed into foster care.

The mother challenged this ruling in the Court of Appeal. Her legal team argued that the Family Court Judge’s analysis of the case had not been sufficient as he had not properly examined the question of whether the removal of her children was necessary and proportionate.

However, Lord Justice McFarlane and President of the Family Division Sir James Munby were not convinced. The former explained it was “not possible to understand how the children could have been protected from future harm if they were to continue to reside in their mother’s home” so “there could be only one outcome” to the case: the one that the Family Court Judge had arrived at in Plymouth. Sir James agreed with this view and the two senior Judges dismissed the mother’s appeal.

The full judgment is available here.

Share This Post...


  1. Dr. Manhattan. says:

    “Both parents reportedly had “a very significant learning disability”
    Very disappointing of Munby. i would argue that the reasoning of court judges has become too extreme and synthetic.
    lets just take a look back through the history of the Human race. thousands of years ago there was no education system. they basically did what all of nature does today. they looked after their offspring by instinct given to them by natures default as with the millions of other species living on this planet.
    the label “learning disability” is nothing more than a excuse to remove children from very likely more than capable parents.

  2. Paul says:

    How awful. Poor kids.
    I don’t think courts listen to enough input when making these choices. They do not fully understand or know the people involved. That said neither do I.
    However whatever the risk was the kids have now ‘deffinatly’ been harmed by this choice. They must be going through hell. Poor kids.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy