K (Children), Re

In care proceedings, appellate courts must respect the trial judge’s evaluation of evidence and welfare factors. Intervention is justified only where the decision is plainly wrong, including where disproportionate weight was given to one factor. A child’s satisfactory current health does not exclude future developmental risk. Parental love and practical parenting ability may coexist with personality difficulties, impulsive behaviour and vulnerability to harmful relationships. A residential assessment should be refused where it offers no realistic prospect of addressing the child’s needs within a reasonable timescale and would cause harmful delay.

The mother appealed from a Bournemouth County Court order made by His Honour Judge Bond on 26 January 2005. The order placed her younger son D in the care of the local authority and freed him for adoption. She did not appeal against the order placing her older son J in care.

The appeal challenged the admission of an edited video recording of a birthday party and the refusal to adjourn for a residential assessment of the mother and D under section 38(6) of the Children Act. The central issues were whether D had suffered significant harm, whether J’s behaviour was attributable solely to ADHD, and whether the mother could safely care for D.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Ward LJ gave the substantive judgment, with Laws LJ and Smith LJ agreeing.
2. Whether D had suffered significant harm required comparison between his health and development and that reasonably expected of a similar child. Although D was generally thriving, the decisive issue was whether he faced future neglect and developmental harm. The evidence supported the finding that the mother’s personality difficulties, limited understanding, impulsive behaviour and vulnerability to abusive relationships created that risk.
3. ADHD contributed to J’s difficulties, but it was not the sole explanation. Poor parenting also contributed, so the mother bore some responsibility for the deterioration in his behaviour.
4. The admission of the edited video was unfortunate, but the judge had approached it cautiously. It was neither significant nor crucial evidence, and its admission caused no procedural irregularity affecting the result.
5. The refusal to order an assessment under section 38(6) was justified. The mother’s difficulties were longstanding and deeply embedded. A short assessment was unlikely to address the fundamental problems, no detailed proposal had been provided, and D needed a settled placement without further delay.
6. Following In Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2005] UKHL 40, appellate intervention was permissible only if the decision was so plainly wrong that excessive weight must have been given to a particular factor. That threshold was not met. The care and adoption orders therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2005] EWCA Civ 961: appeal dismissed.
• Bournemouth County Court — His Hon. Judge Bond, 26 January 2005: D was placed in the care of the local authority and freed for adoption. J was also placed in care, but that order was not appealed.