Case Law and Legal Summaries 2025 overview

To support navigation across the catalogue of Case Law and Legal Summaries, this page provides a running overview of the cases organised by topic area, legal news and guidance summarised during 2025.

Introduction

Case Law and Legal Summaries are an important resource for practitioners to support decision-making in line with current legal and statutory obligations as well as relevant policy changes. They provide an up-to-date reference on how the law should be applied across social care practice. This overview provides links to summaries of key judgments from 2025 with more details of the case and of their impact on social work practice. This will be added to in stages over the year so may not always include more recently published summaries.

Case summaries by theme

Media request to identity organisations

Tortoise Media v A Local Authority in Wales & Ors: This summarised a media application to identify a local authority and police force criticised for their conduct in public law care proceedings. Permission was refused.

The following month, in March 2025, an update was given on the cases journalist Louise Tickle was arguing for the right to report on. Whilst Surrey County Council was named as the local authority involved in the Sara Sharif case, there was an appeal to name the judges previously involved in her Family Court proceedings. Anonymity was granted to the judges but the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, with the judges names being released seven days later.

The best interests of a child as a primary consideration

CAO v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland): what it means to make the best interests of a child a 'primary consideration'.

This was an appeal to the Supreme Court in an asylum matter. The case concerned a mother who had entered the United Kingdom with her children on a visitor's visa. Shortly afterwards, she claimed asylum. She later succeeded in front of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, and the Home Secretary appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue in the appeal was how to protect her children's rights, including their human rights. The appeal was allowed, thereby restoring the decision that had rejected the asylum claim.

The care needs of a severely disabled child

A, R (On the Application Of) v North Central London Integrated Care Board: A judicial review of an integrated care board's commissioning and planning to meet the continuing care needs of a severely disabled child. The local authority was an interested party.

Death of the parent causing harm prior to proceedings

A Local Authority v The child C and Re W (A Minor): Two cases where the mother died prior to the issue of care proceedings, and the court had to consider the effect on the proceedings. Each case was summarised separately, then the cases were discussed together.

Responsibility for a detained young person

Re SB: A dispute between a local authority and a health board as to which was responsible for the detention of a young person, and under what legal framework.

A 15-year-old girl had a diagnosis of autism and had been exhibiting challenging behaviours. She was in a general adolescent unit, where she was subject to a deprivation of liberty (DoL), authorised by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction. The local authority argued that she was detainable under the provisions of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, and that as a consequence, the health board (in Wales) was responsible for her care and treatment. The health board denied that she was detainable under the MHA, but in any event held that the High Court did not have any jurisdiction to make this decision. The High Court (Mr Justice Keehan) agreed that it did not have the power to make this decision.

Deprivation of liberty

Re EM: A case exploring what being ‘on a Deprivation of Liberty’ means.

This case concerned a young woman who was 16 or 17 when diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder, and when made subject to a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) order under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The case included a discussion about the language being used around Deprivation of Liberty, and why some of the language used in this case was legally incorrect and, in the court’s view, unhelpful.

West Sussex County Council v AB & Anor: A case exploring when a deprivation of liberty order can be made without a care order alongside it.

CD, the young person in this case, was adopted. She was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in 2022-23, and then following her discharge, a deprivation of liberty order was made. She lived with her adoptive mother, AB, and care was provided by professional carers in the family home. When the court additionally made her subject to a care order, both the local authority and AB appealed. The appeal was allowed, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, giving the judgment.

In June 2025, a special deprivation of liberty edition summarised the following three cases:

A Local Authority v LB & Ors: A judgment considering if preventing a child absconding for their protection is a sufficient basis for depriving a child of their liberty.

LB, the child in this case, was aged 15. She had originally been accommodated under section 20, Children Act (CA) 1989, but in late 2024 a care order had been obtained. The local authority’s concerns centred around domestic violence and drug use at home. LB did not want to be in care, and frequently absconded, including back to her mother’s care. The local authority had previously been granted a recovery order (to return LB to its care) and an order authorising the accommodation provider to deprive her of her liberty to prevent LB absconding. This was the review of the deprivation of liberty order (DoL). The judge held there was no proper basis for authorising a deprivation of her liberty, and did not authorise it.

J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & Ors: A local authority cannot consent to the deprivation of liberty of a child in its care.

This is the appeal from the decision of Mrs Justice Lieven in the case of J : Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty, Re [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam) (25 June 2024). That case was considered in November 2024: Case Law Legal Summary.

The case concerned a 14-year-old boy with disabilities said to include profound autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pica. He was made subject to a care order. His parents, who shared parental responsibility under the care order, were in agreement with the local authority about the need for the regime that deprived him of his liberty. Mrs Justice Lieven held that he could be deprived of his liberty with the consent of everyone with parental responsibility. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal also agreed and allowed the appeal. The President of the Family Court, Sir Andrew McFarlane, gave the leading judgment.

QX (Parental Consent for Deprivation of liberty: Children under 16): Whether parents can consent to a deprivation of liberty of a child who is not the subject of a care order

A child with significant disabilities was accommodated by the local authority under section 20 Children Act 1989. The local authority sought to ‘regularise’ the position by seeking both a care order and a deprivation of liberty order. The judge found that a care order was not necessary, so had to consider whether a deprivation of liberty order was necessary, in circumstances where the authorisation for the confinement was coming solely from the parents, and not from the local authority. The judge held parents could consent to the confinement of their child, but expressed some reservations.

Designation of responsible local authority

Re G: A dispute between two local authorities as to which of them should be designated as the responsible authority on a care order.

In this case Cheshire East Council instigated child protection proceedings before the birth of the child. The child was born in Manchester, then moved to a hospital in Calderdale, an area to which the parents were relocating. Cheshire East Council brought the care proceedings, and obtained an interim care order. Calderdale Council was designated as the responsible local authority. Calderdale appealed to the Court of Appeal, but its appeal was dismissed.

The meaning of a child in need

R (TW): The Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the definition of a child in need.

This judicial review explored events in 2021, when TW was 16 and approached the local authority for housing support. The local authority did arrange housing and support, but it determined that he was not a ‘child in need’, and therefore was not being provided with accommodation as a child in need under the Children Act 1989 (CA).

As a result, TW did not become a ‘former relevant child’ owed continuing duties into adulthood under section 23C, CA. It was that consequence that led to these proceedings and the dispute about the proper interpretation of what the local authority had done. Along the way, the Court of Appeal grappled with the meaning of the definition of a child in need. The High Court had initially rejected TW's claim. The Court of Appeal agreed, and rejected his appeal also.

Extension of proceedings versus delay

M (A Child): A refusal to extend the proceedings to allow exploration of placement with aunt and uncle overseas instead of placement for adoption.

M, the child at the centre of this case, had been subject to care proceedings the whole of his life, a total of 62 weeks, as at the date of the unsuccessful appeal. The care proceedings had extended beyond 26 weeks for various reasons, but particularly significant to the appeal was the assessment of an aunt and uncle living in Pakistan as possible suitable alternative carers. The Family Court had rejected a further extension of time to pursue this possibility and had made a placement order. The Court of Appeal agreed.

Parental risk assessment

L-G (Children: Risk Assessment): A case about risk assessment, where the harm feared was harm from a father who was not living with the mother and children.

The father of the younger of two children involved in these care proceedings was described a 'violent and cruel man'. The judge in the Family Court had not been satisfied about the mother's insight into, or acceptance of, the risk that he posed to children. Nor was the judge satisfied the mother had completely ended her emotional involvement with him or would protect the children from him. The Court of Appeal dealt with how those risks could still be addressed and therefore how those risks should be assessed. The appeal was allowed, and the children returned to their mother pending a further hearing. Lord Justice Peter Jackson gave the only judgment.

T (Children: Risk Assessment): Risk assessment where the only harm at issue had been nine years earlier, but the mother had never accepted her responsibility for that harm.

A health visitor identified that the mother of a young child had previously been found to have harmed one of her older children. Interim care orders were made. In all other respects parenting was found to be positive, while the older children, placed in foster care following the interim order, were extremely distressed and wanted to return home. The Family Court, and the Court of Appeal, were focussed on the harm associated with the 'single index event' of the injury the mother was said to have caused nine years earlier. The Court of Appeal allowed the parents' appeal.

Case updates

Attempt to revoke an adoption order

July 2024 summary of Re X and Y: Two children who were placed for adoption but years later wanted to be ‘unadopted’ in order to return to their birth mother’s care. Despite the adoptive mother being agreeable, the court refused on the basis that no power to revoke the adoption existed.

In March 2025 an update was given as the Court of Appeal agreed, stating that if there were a possibility of adoptions orders being challenged on welfare grounds, this would gravely damage the commitment of adopters. The Court of Appeal also stated that no such jurisdiction exists to revoke an adoption order.

Treatment of young people with puberty blockers

• Re J and O v P &Anor: Two cases were summarised regarding the treatment of young people with puberty blockers where the parents of each child disagreed with the treatment.

A short update was given to O v P & Anor in December 2024 stating that the barrister for the mother had indicated that the mother has been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In March 2025 a further update was provided, detailing that the mother appealed with permission of the Court of Appeal. The mother had still not been granted a prohibited steps order, nor a declaration that the court's oversight would be needed for a child under the age of 18 to be prescribed puberty blockers. Instead, the Court of Appeal decided that the decision to discharge the interim orders was wrong. What the High Court should have done was to adjourn the case, leaving the issues, and the case, open. In saying that the case should have been adjourned rather than ended with no order, the Court of Appeal said that the issues about puberty blockers for children were in a state of flux.

Deprivation of liberty

J v Bath and North East Somerset Council & Ors: As covered under deprivation of liberty above, this summary was a further judgment from the Court of Appeal.