Somerset County Council v SD & Ors

Where a care judge postpones final disposal to give parents a further opportunity to demonstrate improvement, the court must retain effective judicial control. It must require focused proposals, direct the necessary evidence and assessment, and set a clear timetable for substantial review. A series of short directions hearings without a structured route to final disposal is inadequate. The review must consider whether there is a sufficient prospect of reunification within an acceptable time frame to justify further investment of the children’s time, by reference to their best interests. On appeal, the court may allow an appeal for inadequate case management without deciding whether the evidence justified interim rather than full care orders. Where circumstances have changed, the proceedings may be transferred for structured determination without a de novo rehearing.

This was an appeal by a local authority from interim disposal orders made in care proceedings concerning six children. After a four-day hearing, the county court judge declined to make full care orders or endorse adoption plans, deciding that the parents should have a further opportunity to address their difficulties. The judge later renewed interim care orders and directed further statements and short directions hearings, but did not establish a structured timetable for final disposal. By the time of the appeal, there was disputed evidence of parental progress. The central issues were whether the judge’s case management was adequate and whether the Court of Appeal should determine the children’s final placement itself.

Disposition. The appeal was allowed because the order of 12 March 2007 failed to provide the focused directions necessary for a timely final disposal. The court did not determine whether the evidence justified interim rather than full care orders. The parties had agreed that the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was crossed, so that issue was not in dispute.

1. Judicial control. Even if it had been open to the judge to postpone final disposal, giving the parents a further opportunity required a specific framework for the future conduct of the applications. The court should have required a defined set of proposals, ensured that they were analysed in detail, directed the necessary evidence and, where appropriate, made them the subject of formal directions.
2. Timely review. The court should have fixed a specified time for a substantial review rather than dealing with the case through successive short directions hearings. That review had to assess whether the parents’ efforts produced a sufficient prospect of reunification within an acceptable time frame to justify further investment of the children’s time, by reference to their best interests.
3. Appellate disposal. By June 2007 the parents had made some disputed progress. The Court of Appeal was not in a position to undertake the required professional and measured appraisal. It therefore declined to make full care orders. The applications for care orders and adoptive placement orders were transferred to the High Court, Family Division, for determination by Mr Justice Coleridge on updated evidence. The rehearing was not to be de novo: the judge could use the county court’s accurate summary of the earlier history and evidence, while focusing on developments since February 2007.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 722, the appeal was allowed on case-management grounds. The care and adoptive placement applications were transferred to the High Court, Family Division, for further determination.
• Taunton County Court: On 12 March 2007, His Honour Judge O’Malley renewed interim care orders and directed further statements and a short directions hearing, after declining to make full care orders following his reserved judgment of 19 February 2007.