F (A Child), Re

A trial judge deciding a welfare dispute is not required to answer every criticism of an expert or welfare report separately. Where the judge has heard the principal witnesses and explained the factual and evaluative basis of the decision, that first-hand assessment may provide sufficient reasons. Appellate review should respect the trial judge’s advantage in assessing family dynamics and witness reliability. The court should also apply proportionality to requests for further investigation or repeated questioning of a child, particularly where continued litigation risks destabilising the child.

The father sought permission to appeal against a Southend County Court order concerning the residence of his son. The county court judge had refused to order a further welfare report and had decided the residence application after hearing both parents and cross-examining the Child and Family Reporter. The father alleged that the existing report was inadequate and that further investigation was required. On renewal of the paper refusal of permission, the Court of Appeal considered whether the judge had given adequate reasons and whether he had been entitled to proceed without further investigation.

1. Permission refused. The county court judge had been entitled to determine the residence application on the evidence before him and to refuse a further welfare report.
2. The judge had heard both parents and had heard the Child and Family Reporter cross-examined at length. That placed him in the best position to assess the reliability of the allegations, the parents’ attitudes and the realities of the family relationship. He was entitled to treat the complaints about the report as excessive and inappropriate, and to place weight on the child’s positive progress.
3. Proportionality applied to the father’s criticisms of the report. The judge did not need to descend into a detailed, paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of every complaint where his reasons made clear that he had assessed the report in the context of the first-hand evidence.
4. The observations in Flannery & Anr v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd (t/a Colleys Professional Services) [2000] 2 WLR 381 did not require such a paragraph-by-paragraph exercise. They were consistent with the judge giving reasons that adequately disclosed the basis of his decision.
5. The judge was also justified in seeking an early decision. Further questioning or investigation of the child could have caused further destabilisation in an already difficult relationship. The court referred to the renewal guidance in Khreino [2000] 1 FLR 578 and directed the solicitors to file the legal aid certificate and confirm compliance with Civil Procedure Rules PD 52 paragraph 4.17.

• England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal from the Southend County Court was refused. The court directed compliance with the Legal Services Commission filing requirements.
• Southend County Court: His Honour Judge Yelton refused a further welfare report and determined the residence application on the evidence after hearing the parties and the Child and Family Reporter.