S (A Child)

On an application for permission to appeal care and placement orders, the appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s carefully reasoned welfare assessment unless the proposed grounds show a real prospect that the decision was plainly wrong. A statutory threshold may be met by a likelihood of significant emotional harm alone. Where experts identify psychological assessment as necessary before possible rehabilitation, assessment of both parents may be required.

The parents sought permission to appeal findings made by Her Honour Judge Coates in care proceedings at Brighton County Court. The judge found in December 2008 that the statutory threshold for intervention had been established. In March 2009 she made care and placement orders.

The mother challenged the evidential and procedural basis of the decisions and offered to undergo psychological assessment. The father continued to oppose further assessment and maintained that the child should be returned. The central issues were whether the threshold finding was sustainable, whether the assessment process was necessary, and whether the final orders were plainly wrong or disproportionate.

1. Application refused. The judgments below were not appealable. The applicants had to show a real prospect that the judge’s conclusions were plainly wrong. That standard was not met.
2. The trial judge had a profound acquaintance with the case, having managed it over a prolonged period and observed its dynamics, the parents’ attitudes and their insight. She directed herself correctly, considered the evidence, gave ample reasons and exercised her discretion in accordance with the child’s welfare. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with that careful assessment.
3. The statutory threshold was, at the least, met by a likelihood of significant emotional harm. That conclusion was supported by findings that the parents’ extreme reactions exposed the child to angry and violent scenes, that they removed her from primary school and her friends because of disagreements with the school, and that they initially misled education authorities and did not restore her education.
4. The unresolved psychological concerns were material to any possible rehabilitation. The further assessment had been recommended by both psychiatrists and the children’s guardian, and was not opposed by the independent social worker. Because the parents were a couple, assessment of both was required. An assessment of the mother alone would not sufficiently assist the court in deciding whether safe rehabilitation was possible.
5. The care and placement orders disclosed no arguable error justifying permission to appeal. Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused. [2009] EWCA Civ 945
• Brighton County Court: on 16 December 2008 the court found that the statutory threshold had been met; on 17 March 2009 it made care and placement orders.