There has been plenty of relevant case law over the past few months, together with new guidance on short-notice care proceedings involving newborn babies.
First, an excellent podcast from Fourteen, which I have recommended before. This episode covers the use of AI in domestic abuse cases:
Listen to the Fourteen podcast on AI in domestic abuse cases
Case law
Cornwall Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 306
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2026/306.html
Sticking with the theme of AI, this case involved an independent social worker using Microsoft Copilot to draft the entirety of one of her assessments.
Her oral evidence did not reflect the content or tone of the reports. Crucially, the reports contained a number of errors and assumptions.
The judge accepted that using Copilot for digital transcription, spelling and grammar was not, in itself, a significant issue. The much greater concern was the use of AI to generate the entirety of a report. The analysis of the evidence, subheadings, layout, construction and development had all been generated by AI.
The independent social worker was rightly criticised and the court was unable to place any significant weight on her written or oral evidence.
The basic point is that AI can be useful, but professionals remain responsible for their own work and opinions. There must be proper oversight, and anything produced with the assistance of AI must be carefully checked.
Re E (A Child) (Special Guardianship Order: Public Law Proceedings) [2026] EWCA Civ 1167
Read the full judgment in Re E
This was an appeal following the making of a Special Guardianship Order in favour of a foster carer within care proceedings.
The trial judge did not address whether the threshold criteria were met or consider the issues of proportionality and necessity. The judge took the view that, as a public law order was not being made, a welfare analysis was sufficient. This is an issue which we come across fairly often at the conclusion of care proceedings.
The Court of Appeal found that a Special Guardianship Order has many features of a Care Order, including the ability of the special guardian to exercise parental responsibility to the exclusion of the parents. It also has a similar degree of permanence and interference with family life.
The court should therefore ordinarily adopt broadly the same approach as it would when considering a Care Order. This includes determining whether the threshold criteria have been established and considering whether the proposed order is necessary and proportionate.
The Court of Appeal did leave room for some cases in which determining threshold might not be necessary or appropriate, depending on the particular circumstances.
In this case, without findings on threshold, the court did not have a sufficient factual basis to rule out the mother at the final hearing. The mother had sought to care for the child under a Supervision Order.
Re CX (No. 2) (Domestic Abuse: No Contact) [2026] EWFC 230
Read the full judgment in Re CX
This decision by Mr Justice Garrido, sitting in the Family Court, involved an application to vary a Child Arrangements Order concerning a six-year-old girl.
Findings had previously been made in respect of domestic abuse by the father against the mother, with the father having admitted much of the underlying behaviour.
The court had expert evidence confirming that the mother had complex PTSD arising from the father’s abuse. The expert’s view was that no safeguarding arrangements or other provision around contact with the father would remove the negative impact on the mother. Continuing contact would also prevent her from making the recommended therapeutic progress.
The expert further considered that the court proceedings and contact arrangements were themselves traumatic for the mother. This was affecting, and risked further affecting, her ability to meet the emotional needs of her child.
The court recognised that stopping contact would cause harm and distress to the child. However, it concluded that continuing contact would prevent the mother’s recovery and create a risk of much more serious harm if she became unable to continue providing the child’s day-to-day care.
The court therefore ordered a cessation of contact to secure the child’s medium and long-term welfare.
Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216
Read the full judgment in Re C
This was the first appeal concerning the Child Focused Court model in Child Arrangements Order proceedings.
The father had accepted a significant number of the domestic abuse allegations in the earlier proceedings. The court therefore did not conduct a separate fact-finding hearing.
The Court of Appeal found that this approach was entirely acceptable and consistent with the judicial guidance on fact-finding hearings and domestic abuse. That guidance asks the court to consider whether the alleged behaviour concerns general safeguarding issues or risks that could be managed through supervision or other protective measures.
The father had engaged with a perpetrator programme called Temper. However, that programme did not correspond with the model recommended by the rule 16.4 Children’s Guardian. This left doubts about the father’s insight into his behaviour.
The trial judge rejected the Family Court Adviser’s recommendation in the Child Impact Report that direct contact should end. However, the report itself had failed to analyse the impact on the children of ending their relationship with their father. It had also failed to review the evidence properly by reference to the welfare checklist, which would have assisted both the Family Court Adviser and the court.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother’s appeal against the contact arrangements and the other welfare decisions. The appeal was allowed only in relation to a separate section 91(14) order which had also been made against the mother.
Newborn Baby Protocol
The Newborn Baby Protocol is very new, so I have not yet seen it used in practice.
There are several points worth highlighting:
- Children’s services should be involved from around 12 weeks’ gestation.
- A Family Group Decision-Making meeting must be offered where the local authority intends to issue care proceedings and it is in the child’s best interests.
- The pre-birth assessment should be completed by week 30.
- The Public Law Outline process should begin by week 30 at the latest where there is an indication that care proceedings may be issued at birth.
- By week 36, the pre-birth or parenting assessment should address the family support available and the necessity and proportionality of any proposed separation at birth.
- The local authority’s post-birth plan should be shared with the parents at a pre-proceedings meeting. The hospital should have input into how the parents will participate in any court hearing, and the plan should then be shared with the hospital.
- The pre-birth or parenting assessment should accompany the C110A. A concise updating social work evidence template should follow and should not normally exceed eight sides of A4.
- The hospital should be informed of the date of the initial hearing and should notify the local authority if it cannot continue caring for the baby until that date.
- If the local authority seeks a same-day hearing, it must provide written evidence from the hospital confirming that the baby is medically fit for discharge and explaining why the baby cannot remain in hospital until a later hearing.
- Where the hearing is remote or hybrid, the parents’ solicitors should attend remotely from the same location as their clients, for example from the hospital if the mother remains an inpatient.
The overall aim of the protocol is to improve planning before birth, ensure that families are given a fair opportunity to participate and make same-day applications genuinely exceptional.
