SH & Anor v Suffolk County Council & Anor

On an appeal by way of rehearing in care proceedings, the appellate court must review the evidence and the lower court’s decision-making exercise. It may overturn factual findings, but should respect a decision within the proper discretionary ambit unless affected by legal error, irrelevant considerations, material omission or plain wrongness.

Further assessment or expert evidence should be ordered only where it can materially assist the welfare decision. A child who has already suffered serious harm may properly be treated differently from siblings where the evidence provides strong grounds for doing so. The child’s timescale is central. Where necessary therapeutic change cannot begin and would take years, the court may conclude that the child’s welfare requires permanent placement away from the family, notwithstanding the seriousness of adoption and the family-life rights engaged.

The parents appealed against a care order made by the East Suffolk Family Proceedings Court in respect of their young son. The order endorsed a care plan for placement for adoption. The court had made interim care orders concerning the child’s four siblings and had allowed further assessment and family therapy in those proceedings.

The appeal challenged the refusal to adjourn for further psychiatric assessment, family therapy and additional expert evidence. It also challenged findings concerning parental insight, depression, cooperation, the risk of further emotional harm, discrimination between the siblings, proportionality and rights under Articles 6 and 8. The central questions were whether the magistrates had reached findings properly open to them and whether the child’s welfare required the care order and proposed permanent placement.

1. The appeal was by way of rehearing. The court reviewed the evidence and the magistrates’ balancing exercise, applying the principles stated in Re: CB (A Minor)(Responsibility Order) (1993) 1 FLR 920 and Re: C (A Minor)(Care: Child’s Wishes) (1993) 1 FLR 832. The appellate court could overrule factual findings if, on full consideration, they were wrong.

2. The magistrates had sufficient evidence to decide the case. A further psychiatric assessment would principally have identified illness and treatment, but the evidence showed that meaningful therapeutic progress required parental recognition of the problems and could take years. The mother did not accept that she needed such help. The additional expert evidence sought by the parents was unnecessary, late and unsupported by sufficient grounds. Refusing adjournments did not deny a fair trial or equality of arms.

3. The evidence established significant emotional harm, parental rejection and scapegoating. The parents had not accepted the harm or their responsibility for it. Improved conduct during contact did not demonstrate the capacity to provide safe parenting. The previous treatment of another child provided a strong and materially similar pattern supporting the risk of repetition.

4. The different treatment of the child and his siblings was justified by the different evidence. He had already suffered serious harm and faced a substantial risk of further abuse, whereas the position concerning the other children remained materially different. The distinction was therefore neither discriminatory nor disproportionate.

5. The child’s welfare was paramount under the Children Act 1989. The court considered the threshold requirements, the burden and standard of proof, and the need to evaluate placement by reference to the child’s timescale. The child could not be left in limbo for the two or three years potentially required for therapeutic change, particularly when treatment had not begun.

6. Adoption was a drastic step, requiring strong and clear evidence. On the evidence, the magistrates were entitled to conclude that neither parent could meet the child’s needs and that return home would expose him to unacceptable risk. The appeal was dismissed. The judge left open the detailed question of future sibling and parental contact, noting that further expert evidence might be required.

The judgment records an appeal from the East Suffolk Family Proceedings Court, which had made a care order in respect of the child and endorsed a care plan for adoption. The High Court dismissed the appeal.