The past few months have seen several significant judgments with clear implications for day-to-day practice in family law. The cases below highlight important developments on threshold, non-accidental injuries, the identification of perpetrators, the use of intermediaries, and other practical issues arising in public law proceedings.
I’m not covering Mazur — the profession has already comprehensively analysed it. But if you want the links, they’re here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html
Law Society practice note: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/civil-litigation/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigators
Case Law
Re D (Threshold Findings and Final Orders at IRH) [2025] EWCA Civ 1362
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/1362.html
This was an appeal following care/placement orders being made, which was successful in the Court of Appeal. The case is important because it clearly criticises the insertion of the paragraph we are now all familiar with: “if the parents fail to comply….they shall be taken as not disputing threshold criteria as set out by the local authority”.
The Court criticised a judgment which lacked detail in setting out the basis on which the orders are being made (“justice must not only be done but be seen to be done”). The Court also noting that the detail is necessary for the child when they are an adult, so they can read the judgment and better understand the decision.
Most importantly, the Court considered the “deemed acceptance” paragraph to be unsafe and to have the effect of discouraging judicial engagement, turning it into an administrative and not judicial act.
Re A (A Child) (Mother killed by Father) and the other: Linda Westcarr v Gogoa Lois Tape (1) A (2) The Paternal Grandmother (3)The Paternal Grandfather (4) and The London Borough of Haringey (5).
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/374
A judgment before HHJ Willans sitting as a Judge of the High Court. It was an SGO application following the murder of the child’s mother, by the father.
The SGO application was accompanied by an application for name change and removal of PR. The case includes a helpful summary on both areas of law, which often crop up. It is clearly fact-specific, but is still a helpful (and recent) judgment summarising the relevant case law on each area.
The Court granted the removal of PR, noting that the exercise of PR whilst in prison was limited and any ongoing engagement/consultation in respect of exercise of PR would be harmful to the MGM (prospective SG) (and so harmful to the child).
S v London Borough of Islington [2025] EWHC 2780
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/2780
This is an application in the High Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction to prevent routine vaccinations for a child at home, but subject to an ICO. The Court refused the application, noting that not only were there obvious benefits to the child of such vaccinations, but there were wider policy arguments for vaccinations generally.
The mother relied upon her fear of it causing autism, which had no scientific backing. The Court reminded itself that the established position is that if the LA has a care order, it can arrange and consent to a child being vaccinated, notwithstanding the objections of the parents.
Y, V AND B (Fact-Finding: Perpetrator) [2024] EWCA Civ 1034
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1034.html
The Circuit Judge had failed to identify the perpetrator or possible perpetrator of serious injuries sustained by a nine-month old child. The Court of Appeal summarised the case law on NAI, noting that it is possible to be satisfied without identifying the person who inflicted the injury, but that it is well established that a court should where possible endeavour to identify the perpetrator. The approach the Court should take in such cases is neatly set out at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13.
Re M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/m-a-child-intermediaries/
This case is an appeal following a decision to refuse an intermediary. It sets out a useful summary of the relevant considerations for a Court at paragraph 7 and opens the door once again for more generous use of intermediaries in the context of family proceedings.
Lastly, below is a recent and useful article on the issue of costs in family proceedings (membership to Family Law Weekly is free and it’s a fantastic resource, if not already on your radar)
