P (Children), Re

Permission to appeal in care proceedings should be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of affecting the outcome. Findings concerning other children may be highly relevant to the risk faced by younger children, although each child must be considered separately. The relevance of earlier findings is fact-sensitive. A court should not permit a party to obtain a further expert merely because the first expert’s conclusions are adverse. It must balance the likely benefit of a fresh investigation against the delay and harm caused to the children.

Parents applied for permission to appeal against care orders, orders authorising the local authority to refuse contact, and orders dispensing with parental agreement to adoption and freeing two young children for adoption. The orders were made by Her Honour Judge Davies in the Portsmouth County Court on 2 March 2001.

The parents challenged the fairness of the proceedings, the use of expert and medical evidence, findings concerning older children, and the treatment of later comments allegedly made by one of the younger children. They also sought permission to rely on a further expert report. The central issue was whether any proposed appeal had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success, and permission to adduce further evidence was refused. There was no order for costs.
2. Findings of abuse or neglect concerning one or more children must not automatically determine the position of other children. Each child must be considered separately. However, such findings may be clearly relevant to whether younger children are likely to suffer harm and to what protection is necessary.
3. In this case, the findings concerning the older children, together with the parents’ continuing denial and failure to engage with work intended to reduce the risk, provided a tenable basis for concluding that the younger children could not safely be parented. The Court of Appeal would be slow to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence unless it were shown to be perverse.
4. The reported remarks by one child, and the concerns about their interpretation, were not decisive. The threshold had already been established on other grounds, and the evidence independently supported the conclusion that the parents had not changed their position.
5. There was no unfairness in a joint instruction to a suitably qualified expert. A party cannot obtain another expert simply because the first expert’s conclusions are unfavourable. The court must weigh the likely benefit of a fresh investigation at a late stage against the delay and resulting damage to the children.
6. The Court of Appeal does not retry the case. The relevant question was whether the alleged procedural or evidential defects could realistically have affected the result. They could not.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Portsmouth County Court was refused. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused.
• Portsmouth County Court: On 2 March 2001, Her Honour Judge Davies made care and adoption-related orders concerning the two younger children.