G & B (Children)

In care and adoption proceedings, a court may decide a placement-order application without directing a late viability assessment of a proposed family carer where the evidence already available provides a sufficient basis for decision. The court must balance the advantage of family placement against the permanence and security of adoption, together with the delay caused by further assessment and the likelihood that it will be negative. A local authority should identify and assess possible family placements at an early stage, and a family member wishing to care should come forward promptly. A failure to convene an intended family group conference does not automatically require an adjournment where the judge has sufficient reliable material to determine the children’s welfare.

The mother appealed against placement orders made by His Honour Judge Dedman in the Chelmsford County Court on 1 November 2006 concerning two young children. Care orders were also made, but were accepted as proper and were not challenged. The mother argued that the placement orders should be set aside or adjourned so that her foster sister could be formally assessed as a long-term carer, and that a family group conference should be convened.

The local authority and children’s guardian accepted that the proposed family group conference should have been rearranged, but opposed further delay. They relied on the evidence available to the judge, including concerns about the proposed carer’s circumstances and the guardian’s view that adoption was the more realistic option. The central issue was whether the judge had been entitled to make the placement orders and refuse an adjournment for the proposed assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted, but the substantive appeal was dismissed. The court held that the judge had been entitled to make placement orders and refuse an adjournment for assessment of the mother’s foster sister.
2. The local authority had made mistakes. In particular, it should have convened the family group conference at an earlier stage. That failure did not, on the facts, require the placement orders to be reopened.
3. The judge had sufficient material to exercise his discretion. He had evidence from the local authority and guardian that the proposed carer was unsuitable, evidence about her personal circumstances, and the opportunity to see and hear her give evidence. The proposed assessment was sought only at the final hearing, although it could and should have been sought earlier.
4. In deciding whether to adjourn, the judge was entitled to weigh the benefit of upbringing within the natural family against the permanence and security of adoption. He was also entitled to consider the delay caused by an adjournment and the likelihood that the assessment would be negative. The principles in Re M-H (A Child) did not require a different result because that case involved materially different circumstances, including an earlier assessment request and a stronger existing case for keeping half-siblings together.
5. The wider guidance was that available options for a child should be explored as early as possible. A family member who wishes to be considered as a carer should come forward at the earliest opportunity.
6. For completeness, the court refused the local authority’s application to adduce fresh evidence. Care appeals require the local authority to present the material placed before the judge. The frequent relaxation of the rule in Ladd v Marshall in children’s cases is not a general licence to cure deficiencies by late evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2007] EWCA Civ 358: permission to appeal granted; substantive appeal dismissed.
• Chelmsford County Court — placement orders and care orders made on 1 November 2006; reserved reasons handed down on 17 November 2006.