top of page

Appeal Court Overturns Interim Care Order in Re D [2024] EWCA Civ 498: Hair Strand Testing Evidence Questioned


In Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498, the Court of Appeal overturned an interim care order authorizing the removal of three children from their maternal grandmother's care. The original decision, made by HHJ Jacklin KC, was based largely on hair strand testing reports suggesting the children's exposure to Class A drugs. However, the Appeal Court found that the evidence was misinterpreted, with significant gaps in analysis and presentation. Fresh evidence further undermined the initial findings, leading to the reversal of the removal order, allowing the children to remain with their grandmother pending further hearings.


Case Overview:

  • Case Name: Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing)

  • Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

  • Judgment Date: 10 May 2024

  • Judges: Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Newey, Mr Justice Cobb

  • Keywords: Hair Strand Testing, Interim Care Order, Family Law, Appeal, Drug Exposure


Legal Issues:

Hair Strand Testing:

The appeal centered on the interpretation and reliability of hair strand tests used to justify the removal of the children. The tests initially suggested that the children had been exposed to Class A drugs while in the care of their maternal grandmother. The Appeal Court scrutinized these reports, noting that the summaries presented to the lower court did not accurately reflect the underlying data, leading to a misinterpretation of the evidence.


Interim Care Order:

The court examined whether the interim care order was necessary and proportionate under the circumstances. The appeal questioned whether the children's immediate removal was justified, particularly given the potential for emotional harm and the adequacy of the grandmother's care, which had previously been positively assessed by the local authority.


Court’s Analysis:

  • Evidence Misinterpretation: The Appeal Court found that the lower court placed undue weight on the hair strand testing results without adequately considering the broader evidence or the limitations of such tests. The reports indicated diminishing traces of drugs, which were not clearly communicated in the summaries, leading to a distorted view of the children's exposure to drugs.

  • Gaps in Evidence: The court noted significant gaps, including the lack of direct testimony from the maternal grandmother and uncle, and the absence of the children's perspectives on their care and well-being. The court also emphasized the importance of understanding the full context before making a drastic decision like removing children from their family.

  • Fresh Evidence: New hair strand test results submitted after the initial hearing contradicted the earlier findings, showing no evidence of Class A drugs in the children's system. This further cast doubt on the validity of the original decision.


Judgment Summary:

The Court of Appeal granted the mother’s appeal, setting aside the order for the removal of the children. The interim care order remains in place, with the children staying with their grandmother. The case highlights the critical need for accurate and comprehensive interpretation of scientific evidence in family law cases and the importance of considering the wider context and potential consequences before making life-altering decisions for children.


Implications:

This judgment underscores the importance of cautious interpretation of hair strand testing in legal proceedings, especially in child protection cases. It also serves as a reminder of the need for thorough judicial review and the potential for long-term consequences when children are removed from their familial care based on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence.


References:

  • Re C (A Child) (Interim Separation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1998

  • Islington v M [2017] EWHC 364 (Fam)

  • Re H (A Child: Hair Strand Testing) [2017] EWFC 64


For full details, refer to the published judgment.


4 views0 comments

Comentários


bottom of page