SB v London Borough of Redbridge v LB & Ors

On an appeal from a family proceedings court, the High Court may intervene in a discretionary decision where the lower court erred in law, took irrelevant matters into account, failed to consider relevant matters, or reached a plainly wrong conclusion. An application to disclose care-proceedings papers to a proposed residential assessment unit should be considered in light of the child’s welfare, the finality of the care plan, and the parent’s opportunity to pursue a reasonable assessment. Permission to disclose papers may be granted where that limited step causes no delay to the fixed final hearing. It does not itself justify, or require, a residential assessment.

The appellant, an 18-year-old mother, appealed against the refusal of the Redbridge Family Proceedings Court on 11 September 2003 to permit disclosure of care-proceedings papers to Jamma Umoja, a possible residential assessment unit. Care proceedings concerning her young daughter had been issued by the London Borough of Redbridge. The child was living with foster parents, and the local authority’s care plan was placement with strangers with a view to adoption.

The mother sought disclosure so that Jamma Umoja could consider whether there was a real prospect of a successful and enduring reunification. The central issues were whether the justices had properly exercised their discretion and whether disclosure could be permitted without delaying the fixed outcome hearing.

1. Appeal allowed. The refusal by the family proceedings court to permit disclosure of the papers to Jamma Umoja was set aside. The disclosure was authorised on terms that it must not delay or postpone the outcome hearing fixed for 4 and 5 December 2003.
2. The appellate court’s power to interfere with a discretionary decision is limited. Intervention is justified where the lower court has made an error of law, taken irrelevant matters into account, failed to take relevant matters into account, or reached a conclusion that is plainly wrong. The justices had made no error of law, but their decision was flawed on the other grounds.
3. The child’s age, the length of the proceedings and the need for an early final resolution were relevant only insofar as the proposed disclosure might cause delay. Since the final hearing was already fixed, the disclosure could be permitted without allowing any provisional assessment process to displace it.
4. The number of professionals already involved was largely immaterial. Relevant considerations included the finality of the proposed care plan, the mother’s young age, the interests of justice in permitting her to explore a reasonable residential assessment unit, and the significant change arising from the fact that the child could no longer live with her father.
5. Disclosure was a limited preliminary step. Jamma Umoja could interview the mother without further court permission. A formal direction for residential assessment would be appropriate only if, after considering the papers and any interview, the centre considered that there was a real and good prospect of successfully and enduringly reuniting mother and child.

1. Redbridge Family Proceedings Court: on 11 September 2003, refused permission to disclose the care-proceedings papers to Jamma Umoja.
2. High Court (Family Division): allowed the appeal and authorised disclosure, subject to there being no delay to the fixed outcome hearing.