M (Children)

Under section 38(6) of the Children Act, the court may order an assessment where this is necessary to obtain information required for its own decision on a care application. The court must look beyond labels and identify the proposal’s purpose and relevance in the context of the issues remaining for decision. A programme may include support or therapeutic elements without losing its character as an assessment, provided its primary purpose is to obtain evidence relevant to the court’s determination. The court may override the local authority’s view where that is necessary to discharge its judicial function.

During care proceedings concerning two younger children, the local authority proposed their permanent removal and adoption. The parents and guardian opposed that plan. After an earlier assessment, the judge ordered a further six-month assessment by Seafields addressing the parents’ ability to provide safe, stable and appropriate care. The local authority appealed, arguing that the proposed programme was primarily therapeutic and that further assessment was unnecessary. The central issue was whether the judge had jurisdiction under section 38(6) of the Children Act to make the order.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to order the assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act. The order concerned a non-residential social work assessment of the parents’ ability to contain chaos and provide a stable and secure home for the two younger children.
2. The court must be wary of labels. It must examine the proposal’s purpose and relevance in the context of the case as it has developed and the issues still requiring determination. The distinction between assessment and therapy may be difficult in some cases, particularly where a programme is extensive or residential.
3. The judge’s purpose was to obtain information necessary to decide whether a care order should be made. The programme’s support, parenting-skills training and therapeutic components did not deprive it of its essential assessment character. The assessment was directed to matters relevant to the welfare decision, including the parents’ capacity to meet the children’s needs.
4. Following Re C (Minor) (Interim care order: residential assessment) [1977] AC 489, the court’s power may override the local authority’s view where necessary to enable the court properly to decide whether to grant a care order. Allowing the local authority to control the evidence would risk permitting an administrative decision to pre-empt the judicial decision.
5. The application for permission to appeal was allowed, but the appeal itself was dismissed. Detailed assessment of the first and second respondents’ costs was ordered.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from Brighton County Court dismissed. The order requiring the Seafields assessment was upheld.