C-B (Children), Re

Permission to appeal in care and adoption proceedings should be refused where the proposed grounds merely seek to revisit trial findings on parental credibility, reliability and expert evidence. Such findings are primarily for the trial judge and should not be circumvented by analytical re-examination on appeal.

A reversal of an established plan for very young children ordinarily requires a dramatic change of circumstances. Convention rights may conflict, and an interference with a parent’s rights may be necessary and proportionate to safeguard vulnerable children, whose interests are paramount. An application for freeing orders may properly be made by a local authority where security and stability for the children justify that course.

The mother of three children applied for permission to appeal against January 2002 orders made in the Plymouth County Court. The orders included freeing orders for her infant twins, who had previously been placed for adoption under care orders, and refusal of her applications to discharge those care orders.

The trial judge had relied on adverse findings about the mother’s honesty, trustworthiness and conduct, rejected contrary expert evidence, and accepted unanimous evidence that the twins should move promptly to their adoptive home. The appeal raised issues concerning changed circumstances, proportionality under Article 8, and whether the local authority or the carers should have applied for the freeing orders.

1. Permission refused. The mother had not shown sufficient prospects of success.
2. The trial judge’s findings concerning the mother’s credibility and reliability, and his assessment of the competing expert evidence, were crucial to the outcome. Such findings were matters for the trial judge and were not to be circumvented by analytical probes undertaken during the appellate process.
3. Once a plan had been established for very young children, an application to reverse it required a dramatic change of circumstance to have a realistic prospect of success. The mother’s successful parenting assessment did not overcome the contrary findings concerning her failure to engage in crucial therapeutic work and her handling of a serious miscarriage.
4. The unanimous expert evidence that the twins should be moved promptly to their adoptive home meant that the case was far removed from a borderline case. Although the mother’s Convention rights, particularly under Article 8, were engaged, the children’s rights were also engaged and were paramount. The interference with the mother’s rights was necessary and appropriate to safeguard the children.
5. The judge was entitled to conclude that there was an overriding need for the twins’ physical, emotional and psychological security and stability, and that this justified the local authority’s freeing-order applications rather than requiring the carers to apply for adoption orders.

The application was refused, with detailed assessment of the applicant’s Community Services Legal Funding.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Plymouth County Court was refused. The application concerned the January 2002 judgment of His Honour Judge McIntosh.