P (A Child), Re

On an application for permission to appeal in care and adoption proceedings, the Court of Appeal does not retry the case or reweigh the evidence. Its task is to identify whether there is reason to suppose that the first-instance judge went badly wrong or misdirected herself in law. Where essential documents and information are missing, and the applicant appears in person, fairness may require the application to be adjourned so that the material can be obtained and the opposing public authority can attend.

The father sought permission to appeal, treated by the court as a joint application by both parents, against orders made by Her Honour Judge Davies in the Family Division. The orders placed two young children in the care of the local authority, permitted contact to be refused, dispensed with parental agreement to adoption, and freed the children for adoption.

The proposed grounds included alleged procedural unfairness concerning expert evidence and interviews with the children, excessive reliance on one psychological report, the change in the care plan, and interference with family-life and related rights. The Court of Appeal lacked several relevant documents and adjourned the application to obtain further information.

1. Application adjourned. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned on notice to the local authority. The matter was directed to be listed before Lady Justice Hale or Lord Justice Thorpe before 31 July 2001 because the case concerned two very young children for whom adoption was proposed.
2. The Court of Appeal’s function was limited. It was not required to try the case again. It had to identify whether there was reason to suppose that the first-instance judge had gone badly wrong or had misdirected herself in law.
3. The court could not fairly assess the grounds without documents concerning the expert’s qualifications and instructions, any refusal of a further expert, the other assessments, and the guardian ad litem’s views. In the absence of that material, the court had no reason to doubt the judge’s conclusions, which had been reached after consideration of the evidence.
4. Because the applicant appeared in person, the court allowed an opportunity to place the relevant information before it. The local authority was required to attend the adjourned hearing, and the Civil Appeals Office was directed to investigate whether a missing judgment existed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal adjourned on notice to the local authority.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Her Honour Judge Davies made care and adoption-related orders on 2 March 2001 concerning the two children.