Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Louise Sapstead (instructed by Emma Taylor of Cartwright King Solicitors) for the First Respondent.
James Cleary (instructed by Amber Jackson of Broadbent Solicitors) for the Second Respondent.
       This is a finding of fact hearing to determine whether the threshold criteria are satisfied pursuant to s. 31 (2) Children Act 1989 so that the court can ultimately go on to make welfare decisions in relation to two young children, B d.o.b. xxxx (now aged 8) and C d.o.b. xxxx (now aged 7).� The court determined, after receiving written and oral representations at a case management hearing on 24 6.25 that it was appropriate to have such a hearing.�
       The matter is timetabled on to an issues resolution hearing before myself on 23.9.25. There is no need for me to set out the procedural history of the proceedings in any detail at this stage, save to note that the children have not been in the care of their parents since 19 April 2024. They are subject to interim care orders and placed with their maternal grandfather and his partner, having experienced a number of moves of placement since the issue of proceedings. The parents are clear they seek a return of B and C to their care.
       The relevant findings sought in relation to threshold by the local authority appear in the bundle at AA35. The parents' responses appear at AA48 (the mother's) and AA43 (the father's).� Those findings are grouped into the following categories:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.