S (Children)

In care proceedings, the decision whether to adjourn so that a local authority can reconsider its care plan lies within the judge’s wide case-management powers. A further adjournment may properly be refused where the authority has read and considered the judge’s substantive judgment, reached a considered decision, and is unlikely to change it. The authority’s decision may be seriously misguided, but that does not by itself show an error of case management. The position differs where an authority has acted briskly without properly engaging with the judge’s contrary reasoning.

Three children, through their guardian, sought permission to appeal against a decision in care proceedings by His Honour Judge Shawcross in the Portsmouth County Court on 3 March 2008. The judge had declined to adjourn so that Hampshire County Council could reconsider its care plan after deciding that the children should remain living with their mother.

The local authority declined to amend its plan for full care orders and instead supported supervision orders. The guardian argued that the judge should have required a further reconsideration because the children remained at serious risk and relied on Re S and W (Care Proceedings). The central issue was whether refusing a further adjournment exceeded the judge’s case-management discretion.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Wilson refused permission to appeal. Lord Justice Ward agreed.
2. Case-management discretion. The judge had wide powers to manage the care proceedings. There was no arguable case that he exceeded those powers by refusing a further adjournment. The Court of Appeal did not need to reconsider the judge’s underlying decision that the children should remain with their mother, which was not challenged.
3. Considered decision by the local authority. The judge had made clear that he expected the local authority to reconsider its care plan. The authority then held a meeting after receiving and reading his comprehensive written judgment. Its officers considered the advantages and disadvantages of amending the plan and reached a considered decision not to do so. The judge was entitled to conclude that another adjournment would be pointless because the authority would almost inevitably reach the same conclusion.
4. Quality of the authority’s decision. The Court of Appeal adopted the judge’s view that the authority’s conduct was deplorable. Nevertheless, the authority’s bona fides, as distinct from the merits of its judgment, were not in doubt. A poor or obstructive decision did not, without more, require the judge to order repeated reconsideration.
5. Earlier authority distinguished. Re S and W (Care Proceedings) [2007] EWCA Civ 232, [2007] 2FLR 275, concerned a local authority that acted briskly after hearing an oral judgment, without waiting for the transcript and without properly engaging with the judge’s contrary views. There was a material distinction between that situation and the full consideration given to the written judgment in the present case.

Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 May 2008, refused permission to appeal against the refusal of a further adjournment.
2. Portsmouth County Court: On 3 March 2008, His Honour Judge Shawcross declined to adjourn for reconsideration of the care plan and made supervision orders with provision for supervised contact.