SK, Re

At an interim hearing concerning an adult who lacked capacity, the court declined to authorise a trial placement with her mother where professional evidence identified substantial unresolved safeguarding, family-conflict and care concerns. On an application for a further independent social-work report, the court should assess whether the existing report is fundamentally flawed, biased, wrong, unbalanced or unfair. If it is not, the court should consider whether the report is pivotal, whether it can be challenged effectively without another expert report, and the effect on the hearing timetable. A further report requires a good reason and should not duplicate evidence that can be tested through cross-examination and other evidence.

The local authority brought proceedings concerning SK, an adult in her thirties who was agreed to lack capacity. A final hearing was listed for March 2008. At this interlocutory hearing, SK’s mother sought permission for SK to return to her home on a trial basis and sought a further independent social-work report, initially as a paper exercise.

The applications were opposed by the local authority and the Official Solicitor. The evidence included reports from an independent social worker and psychiatrists concerning SK’s vulnerability, mental illness, learning disability, family conflict, safeguarding risks and the suitability of the proposed placement. The mother challenged the first social-work report as repetitive, generalised, unbalanced and unfair. The central issues were whether the proposed interim placement was in SK’s best interests and whether a second social-work report was justified.

1. Trial placement. The application to place SK with her mother pending the final hearing was refused. The court considered the professional reports and submissions compelling. The evidence disclosed substantial unresolved concerns, including family conflict, risks of maltreatment and exploitation, the mother’s ability to protect SK and the practical demands of caring for her. Although the mother’s latest statement offered hope of a fresh approach, that change had not been assessed.
2. The court accepted that, at an interim hearing, it could take the matters identified in the independent social worker’s report into account even though the evidence had not been tested. The court was not required to make final findings of fact before deciding whether a short trial placement was presently in SK’s best interests. The substantial number of concerns was sufficient to refuse the placement, notwithstanding that some might have less force over a short period.
3. Further expert evidence. A second report is not barred merely because the first expert was instructed by all parties: Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382. In medical cases, particular caution is required where the existing evidence is pivotal and effective cross-examination may be difficult without another expert report. The court also recognised the need for stringent control of experts, having regard to scarcity, expense and the need for a good reason before obtaining further evidence: W v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] 1 FLR 543; Re J (Care: assessment: fair trial) [2007] 1 FLR 77.
4. For non-medical evidence, the court should first ask whether the existing report is fundamentally flawed or biased, or is otherwise wrong, unbalanced or unfair. If not, it should ask whether the report is pivotal and whether it can be challenged without further expert evidence. The effect of a further report on the timetable may also be relevant.
5. The independent social-work report was thorough and clear. The court found no flaw, bias, lack of balance or unfairness. It was not pivotal, could be challenged effectively in cross-examination, and could be supplemented by party evidence and further local-authority reports. Both applications were therefore refused.

First-instance interlocutory decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.