C (A Child)

Permission to appeal in public-law children proceedings is subject to a high threshold. A recent change in a parent’s circumstances will not ordinarily justify permission where the first-instance judge conducted a full and careful assessment, the change remains untested, and an appeal would delay the child’s final placement. Each child’s circumstances must be considered separately; different orders for siblings do not themselves establish error. Where changed circumstances arise, a pending freeing-order application may provide the appropriate forum for the trial judge to consider them, including whether a parent’s withholding of consent is unreasonable.

West Sussex County Council obtained interim care orders for D and J, the mother’s teenage children, and a full care order for S, the 14-month-old child of the applicant father and mother, in Brighton County Court before Her Honour Judge Coates. The father sought permission to appeal, relying on his recent separation from the mother and fresh evidence concerning his ability to care for S. The local authority and guardian opposed permission, while the mother supported it. The central issue was whether the recent change, the different orders for the siblings, and S’s need for a final placement justified an appeal.

Lord Justice Thorpe delivered the principal judgment. Mr Justice Wall agreed with the result and added observations.

1. Permission refused. The application had to be assessed by reference to S alone. The father could not argue that interim orders for the older children meant that a more stringent order for S was necessarily impermissible.
2. The judge below had tried the case fully and carefully, given a reasoned judgment, considered expert evidence, and reached findings which could not properly be challenged. The father’s separation from the mother was very recent. Time was needed to test its quality and permanence.
3. The court was required to apply a high and consistent standard when deciding whether permission should be granted. A successful appeal could only have resulted in the case being sent back for a retrial and evaluation of the new circumstances. That process would extend the timetable by months and risk delaying S’s ultimate placement.
4. The need for a very young child to move promptly to a final home, so that a profound psychological attachment could develop, had to be balanced with a fair hearing for the adult and child. The pending freeing-order proceedings, including the application under section 34(4), provided an opportunity for the father to present his changed circumstances and argue that withholding consent was unreasonable. That opportunity was not equivalent to an appellate retrial, but it was the proper forum for the issue to be considered.
5. The application was refused. There was a detailed assessment of the guardian ad litem’s costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 28 June 2002, the father’s application for permission to appeal was refused. [2002] EWCA Civ 1049.
2. Brighton County Court — Her Honour Judge Coates made interim care orders concerning D and J and a full care order concerning S on 31 May 2002. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.