P, Re

On an appeal from a care order, the appellate court may intervene only where the lower court was plainly wrong in resolving disputed facts or exercising its discretion. It must not substitute an alternative order merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. In assessing a proposed carer for children who have suffered psychological harm, competent physical care and evident love are insufficient. The court must consider whether the carer has the insight and emotional understanding required to meet the children’s emotional needs, including their need for secure and reparative parenting. The children’s timescales are material: proposed therapeutic change must be achievable within the period relevant to their need for prompt and final placement.

The maternal grandmother appealed against care orders made by the family proceedings court at Chatham on 27 February 2007 concerning three children. The parents accepted that the statutory threshold criteria under section 31 had been met. The grandmother sought special guardianship and/or residence, while the local authority sought final care orders.

The children had lived with the grandmother for about 21 months before their removal under an interim care order. The appeal challenged factual findings concerning unauthorised contact and the conclusion, supported by psychological and guardian evidence, that the grandmother could provide basic physical care but lacked sufficient insight and emotional understanding to meet the children’s needs. The central issue was whether the magistrates’ decision was plainly wrong.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates had sufficient evidence to make the challenged findings and to conclude that the grandmother could not adequately meet the children’s emotional needs.

2. On an appeal against a fact-finding decision or the exercise of discretion, the appellate court must not substitute its own view merely because it might have made a different order. Intervention requires satisfaction that the lower court was plainly, obviously wrong.

3. The finding that the grandmother had permitted unauthorised contact was supported by the social worker’s evidence and was open to the magistrates. The further findings concerning unauthorised contact with the parents and the grandmother’s failure to put the children’s needs first were also supported by evidence, including what one child had reported.

4. The grandmother had provided the children’s basic physical care, but the decisive issue was whether she could parent them adequately in emotional terms. The children had suffered earlier psychological harm and required parenting capable of meeting their emotional needs and helping repair that harm. Love, commitment and functional care did not by themselves establish that capacity.

5. The evidence of the psychologist and guardian supported the conclusion that the grandmother lacked the necessary insight and understanding. Psychotherapy might assist, but the evidence was that the required change would probably take longer than the children’s timescales. Children of this age required prompt and final placement rather than continuing uncertainty.

6. Even if the finding about the October sighting had been wrong, it was not the principal basis for the decision. The independent concern about the grandmother’s lack of insight and inability to meet the children’s emotional needs remained sufficient. The magistrates were not plainly wrong.

• High Court (Family Division): The appeal against final care orders made by the family proceedings court sitting at Chatham on 27 February 2007 was dismissed.