In the case of Re G (a child) a care order was made following findings that the threshold for making such an order had been crossed and that the child had suffered and was at risk of suffering significant harm. The order was made by a district judge and the mother’s appeal was dismissed by the circuit judge. Dennis Sharpe, representing the mother before the Court of Appeal: ‘summarised his core submission in terms which are both robust and attractive by saying “despite the length of the judgment, when we get to the bit that matters, the district judge needed to carry out a balancing exercise to identify the risks of separating J from M in contrast to the risks of returning home.”
The judge below approved a care plan for long term fostering and this was upheld at the first appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a rehearing as the courts below had not adequately balanced the risks of harm involved in separation as opposed to not separating.
See: Re G (a child) (care order:proportionality)  All ER (D) 375 (Jul) CA (Civ)