G & P (Children), Re

In care proceedings, assessment of a prospective carer requires an overall evaluation. Physical care, practical parenting and the relationship with the child are important, but the court must also consider protection, recognition of the child’s needs and emotional parenting. The trial judge is best placed to evaluate evidence, including the applicant’s presentation in oral evidence. An appellate court should not substitute a different care arrangement for the trial judge’s discretionary evaluation absent plain misdirection. A psychological assessment may properly be refused where the prospects of a favourable outcome are slender and the resulting delay would unjustifiably postpone final placement.

The case concerned P, the youngest of three children. The mother’s care of the older children had previously resulted in a care order. During a three-week trial before Hogg J, the father initially supported the mother’s application to care for P but later sought to be considered as sole carer. Hogg J considered the father’s application alongside that of the grandmother, but had serious concerns about his judgment, attachment to the mother, ability to protect P and capacity for emotional parenting. The father also challenged the refusal to obtain a psychological assessment. Permission to appeal was refused by Hogg J and on paper by Lord Justice Thorpe. The issue was whether a renewed application for permission should be granted.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Overall evaluation. The trial judge was required to assess the father’s proposed care in the round. Reliable physical care, practical parenting ability and the ability to relate to a child as a child were important, but they did not comprise the whole assessment. The judge was also entitled to consider the father’s capacity to protect P and to provide emotional care.
2. Assessment of evidence. The trial judge’s concerns were supported not only by professional evidence but also by the father’s own evidence. Evaluating a potential carer through examination-in-chief and cross-examination was an important part of the trial judge’s function.
3. Appellate restraint. The Court of Appeal had no comparable opportunity to assess the father. It would therefore be unprincipled to substitute another care arrangement for the trial judge’s decision. The discretionary determination could not be interfered with absent plain misdirection, and no such misdirection was shown.
4. Psychological assessment. The decision whether to order an assessment was discretionary. The judge was entitled to require prospects of a favourable outcome before ordering an assessment. Since the assessment would delay final placement and the prospects of P living with the father were very slender, refusing it was justified.
5. Order. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed and permission was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 13 September 2001, Lord Justice Thorpe refused the renewed oral application for permission to appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Hogg J conducted a three-week trial and gave judgment on 29 June. Permission to appeal was refused on 13 July, followed by refusal of a paper renewal on 1 August.