G & K (children), Re

In care proceedings, a welfare decision may be finely balanced without being erroneous. The trial judge must decide which side of the balance best serves the child’s interests, including the competing considerations of safety and an established primary attachment. An appellate court should not interfere merely because expert evidence admits different interpretations, or because the judge could have explained the weighting more fully, where the relevant evidence was considered and the conclusion was open to him. An alleged imperfect summary of evidence is immaterial if it could not have affected the decision.

The mother appealed against orders made by Portsmouth County Court on 18 and 22 June 2007 concerning her son, T. The orders placed him under a full care order with a plan for residence with his maternal grandparents and supervised contact with the mother.

The orders followed earlier findings that the mother had inflicted non-accidental bruising on T’s sister, H, and that T was likely to suffer significant harm in her care. The mother argued that the judge had misunderstood the later oral evidence of a clinical psychologist and had failed to give proper weight to T’s secure attachment to her. The central issue was whether those alleged errors undermined the welfare decision.

Lord Justice Wilson gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Thorpe agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. The psychologist’s evidence was finely balanced and included answers suggesting that the mother’s progress in therapy should first be reviewed. However, the evidence also distinguished proper cognitive behavioural psychotherapy from the less formal work then available through a social worker. When the evidence was read as a whole, the psychologist’s ultimate recommendation was consistent with immediate placement of T with the grandparents.
2. In any event, the judge’s decision would have remained valid even if his summary of the psychologist’s evidence had been imperfect. All the professionals regarded the issue as borderline. It was for the judge to decide, in T’s interests, which side of that balance the decision should fall.
3. The judge had the social worker’s evidence about T’s secure attachment to his mother well in mind. The Court of Appeal rejected the submission that he needed to explain more fully why T’s safety outweighed that attachment. The judgment and the evidence showed that the competing considerations had been addressed.
4. The appellate court therefore declined to interfere with the judge’s discretionary welfare assessment. The suggestion that a series of interim care orders should have been preferred did not establish an error requiring appellate intervention.
5. The orders made on 22 June 2007, including the full care order and placement plan with the grandparents, stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 1291, the court dismissed the mother’s appeal.
• Portsmouth County Court: On 18 and 22 June 2007, His Honour Judge Marston made orders placing T under a full care order, with residence planned with his maternal grandparents and supervised contact with the mother.