C (A Child)

A judge deciding a child’s future need not expressly identify every reason for rejecting a court welfare officer’s recommendation. It is sufficient if the judgment, read as a whole, discloses those reasons by necessary inference. The appellate court should consider the judgment in its practical context, including the discretionary and finely balanced nature of the decision. Where the reasons are adequately apparent and subsequent events support the outcome, permission to appeal may properly be refused, particularly where setting aside the decision would achieve little beyond a retrial.

The application arose from a Northampton County Court decision concerning the residence of a nine-year-old boy whose care had shifted between his parents. The county court judge preferred residence with the father, despite the court welfare officer’s recommendation. The mother sought permission to appeal, arguing that the judge had not expressly explained why he departed from that recommendation. The Court of Appeal considered whether the reasons for rejecting the recommendation were sufficiently disclosed by the judgment as a whole.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the central question was whether the county court judgment, read as a whole, disclosed by necessary inference the reasons for departing from the court welfare officer’s recommendation.
2. The judgment showed that the recommendation had remained at the forefront of the judge’s mind. His balancing of the competing risks, and his explanation of why residence with the father was preferred, sufficiently revealed why the recommendation was not accepted. It was preferable that such reasons be stated expressly, but express wording was not essential in the circumstances of this extempore judgment.
3. The appellate court also took account of the practical context. The decision was finely balanced, and setting it aside would have produced little benefit if the only consequence was a retrial. Subsequent events, including the child’s refusal to return to Northamptonshire and his return to the Bournemouth school, provided further support for refusing permission.
4. Mr Justice Penry-Davey agreed. The order was: application refused; public funding assessment of both parties’ costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal from the Northampton County Court refused. The judgment under challenge had ordered that the child live with his father.