K (a child), Re

A child-welfare issue concerning whether children should have an Egyptian or English future must be determined by the court of trial, which must give due weight to all information and changes in circumstances. The trial court must weigh the available alternatives, including keeping the children together in their existing placement, returning them together to Egypt, or separating them. An expert-assessment application may properly be deferred until a substantive application exists to which it can attach, but should then be restored promptly if it may affect a fixed hearing. Following transfer to the Principal Registry, necessary directions should be dealt with there. The Court of Appeal declined to entertain permission on the material supplied and dismissed the application.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal, together with an extension of time, from a judgment of His Honour Judge Bloom QC dated 9 July 2001. The dispute concerned the future placement of two boys, S and A, and possible expert assessment of cultural issues. After an earlier Court of Appeal judgment on 13 December, the trial judge directed that any application to discharge the care order for S be issued and later transferred proceedings to the Principal Registry. The application was issued late, and the guardian’s expert-assessment request remained unresolved. The central questions were which court should determine the children’s future and how the outstanding assessment application should be managed.

Application dismissed. The responsibility for deciding whether the children’s future should be Egyptian or English remained with the court of trial. That court had to consider all relevant information and changes in circumstances since the earlier judgment, and weigh three alternatives: both children remaining with their existing carers, both children going to Egypt, or the children being separated.

1. The appropriate procedural vehicle for reconsidering the future of S was an application by the aunt to discharge the care order. The judge was entitled to defer ruling on the guardian’s application for expert assessment until a substantive application existed to which the assessment could attach.
2. Once the substantive application was issued and its nature clarified by the supporting statement, the guardian should restore the expert-assessment application as soon as possible. If assessment were ordered, prompt action was required to avoid jeopardising the fixed final hearing.
3. The transfer of the proceedings to the Principal Registry was inconsistent with any reservation by the trial judge of responsibility for directions. Necessary decisions on whether an expert was required on cultural issues should therefore be taken by a district judge at the Principal Registry, with the application listed as a priority.
4. The earlier observation that the trial judge’s judgment was reasoned and without flaw was provisional and did not amount to a final determination of the children’s future. The proper course was to defer to the trial court and not entertain the renewed permission application on the material placed before the Court.

The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): An earlier judgment on 13 December directed that the children’s future be considered by the court of trial. On 18 March 2002, the renewed application for permission to appeal and extension of time was dismissed: [2002] EWCA Civ 546.
• Trial court: His Honour Judge Bloom QC gave judgment on 9 July 2001. Directions were given on 14 December 2001 and 7 January 2002, including transfer to the Principal Registry, an extension for issuing an application concerning S’s care order, and listing of the substantive hearing.