M (Children), Re

In child care proceedings, a judge may refuse a late adjournment where proposed professional evidence is unlikely to assist materially and the welfare issue can be resolved on the existing material. An incomplete psychological assessment does not necessarily require postponement if its completion would not affect the outcome, even if it removed doubts about a proposed carer’s abilities. A firm case-management approach is permissible where it advances the children’s welfare. Permission to appeal requires realistic prospects of success; criticism of a robust but reasoned approach will not suffice.

Three children were taken into care, and the local authority sought care orders. The father of one child, A, wished to be considered as her future carer. The parties sought adjournments to obtain further professional assessments. Judge Hamilton refused the applications, proceeded to a final hearing, and granted care orders in respect of all three children. The father did not give evidence and sought permission to appeal, arguing that the judge should have adjourned the proceedings or should not have decided against him before completion of the assessments. The central issue was whether the judge’s interlocutory and trial decisions were sufficiently flawed to give the proposed appeal realistic prospects of success.

The Court of Appeal, in a single judgment delivered by Lord Justice Thorpe, refused permission to appeal.

1. The relevant question was whether the judge’s conduct of the interlocutory proceedings and the trial was so obviously flawed that the proposed appeal had realistic prospects of success.
2. The judge was entitled to refuse a late adjournment where the further professional material was unlikely to add substantial value and the court was able to address the central welfare question on the material available. The firm approach was justified by the need to determine the children’s future without unnecessary delay.
3. The incomplete psychological assessment did not require the decision to be postponed. The judge expressly considered the possibility that completion of the assessment would remove the doubts concerning the father’s parenting abilities. He was nevertheless entitled to conclude that the outcome would remain the same because A’s greater welfare lay in preserving her daily relationship with her siblings.
4. The father’s decision not to give evidence was materially adverse to his prospects. That conclusion reflected both the responsibility he sought to undertake and the substantial concerns arising from his personal history and conduct during the proceedings.
5. Although other judges might have adopted a different approach, the judge’s reasoning fully justified the course taken. In the circumstances, refusing the adjournments and making care orders in respect of all three children was not plainly wrong. The application was therefore refused.

• Birmingham County Court: Judge Hamilton refused adjournment applications, proceeded to the final hearing, and made care orders in respect of all three children. His reserved judgment was dated 8 March 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The father sought permission to appeal. The application was refused.