Representing a Child in Care Proceedings Involving Exceptional Care Order Considerations

Case study by: Hannah Read Aug 2026

Overview

This was a highly complex set of care proceedings involving a young infant, Q, whose future living arrangements and safety were in dispute following lengthy assessments and a rare consideration of whether a final Care Order could be made with Q remaining at home with his parents. The case required detailed evidence gathering, which included a neurodivergence assessment and mental health evaluation, alongside extensive observations of parental capacity.

Representing a Child in Care Proceedings Involving a Care Order

Q was an infant approaching his first birthday. He had initially been placed in foster care under an interim Care Order made in September 2024. Subsequent to this, and after significant delay to allow for specialist assessments, Q was transitioned home to his parents shortly before the final hearing. Both parents have histories of childhood trauma, mental health issues, substance misuse, and volatile interpersonal dynamics. Previous proceedings had resulted in the removal of an older sibling from the mother’s care under a Special Guardianship Order.

Assessments included:

Cognitive functioning evaluation
Expert neurodivergence analysis of the father (including ADHD diagnosis and recommendations for therapeutic intervention)
Independent social work assessment through ParentAssess
Ongoing multidisciplinary input regarding parental capacity and risk.

The Local Authority acknowledged delay caused by the need to secure appropriate expert evidence and ensure medication access for the father’s ADHD but argued that there remained significant unresolved risks warranting a final Care Order.

Legal Issues and Challenges

At the heart of the case was whether it was proportionate and justified to make a Care Order while allowing Q to remain at home with his parents, or whether a less intrusive Supervision Order would be aThe final issue at the end of the case was whether it was proportionate and justified to make a Final Care Order while allowing Q to remain at home with his parents, or whether a less intrusive Supervision Order would be appropriate given that Q had recently transitioned home. Exceptional circumstances needed to be established if a Final Care Order at home was to be made on such a basis. The court engaged with established principles that require exceptional reasons where a care order supports a child remaining at home, and a careful assessment of risk versus benefit.

The case engaged a wide docket of evidence relating to:

The impact of parental mental health and behaviour patterns, including historical and current concerns
The father’s ADHD diagnosis, medication management and therapeutic work
The capacity of both parents to consistently meet Q’s needs
Whether the risks of significant harm had been sufficiently reduced to support permanency at home
The relative merits of a Supervision Order compared to a Care Order.

Throughout the proceedings, the Children’s Guardian supported the Local Authority’s position that a final Care Order was justified.

Cartwright King’s Role and Strategic Approach

Cartwright King, through Hannah Read, Head of Care in our Derby office, represented Q’s interests robustly, focussing on:

Ensuring the court had a full and child-centred analysis of risk alongside the strength of evidence on parental engagement and progress
Arguing for a nuanced application of public law principles, with careful scrutiny on whether exceptional reasons truly existed to justify a Care Order with home placement
Co-ordinating with experts and the Guardian to emphasise Q’s welfare as paramount, balancing stability afforded by familial placement against the need for legal protective measures
Ensuring the voice of the child (Third Respondent) was represented at every stage, with a clear articulation of how orders would impact Q’s safety and development.

Cartwright King’s advocacy was focused not merely on abstract legal principles, but on how the evidence translated into real-world implications for Q’s ongoing care and wellbeing.

Outcome

After a detailed evaluation of evidence and submissions, the court determined:

The threshold for a public law order was met, with significant factual concerns on the basis of both parents’ histories and ongoing risks.
The key issue was whether a Care Order at home was justified. While recognising the work done by the parents and progress made, HHJ Patel concluded that the risk factors had not been sufficiently reduced and that it was proportionate to make a Care Order rather than leave the family under a Supervision Order.
The decision balanced the child’s welfare, parents’ engagement, and statutory requirements, underscoring that a Care Order, must only be made where exceptional reasons justify it, even with placement at home.

Key Issues and Legal Significance

This judgment highlights the careful balance courts must strike in modern care proceedings, particularly when deciding whether a less intrusive order is appropriate in cases involving complex parental needs and concerns about a child’s safety. The case demonstrates the importance of clear, well-evidenced assessments, meaningful therapeutic support for parents, and robust legal representation to ensure that a vulnerable child’s welfare remains the central focus in public law proceedings.

Cartwright King, led by Hannah Read, played a key role in representing the child’s interests, carefully scrutinising the evidence of risk and making clear, child-focused submissions to the court. This case demonstrates the firm’s experience and expertise in handling complex and high-risk public law care proceedings.