D O'H (Children), Re

In care proceedings, shortcomings in a core assessment do not automatically prevent the court deciding the children’s future where the evidence as a whole is sufficient. Local authorities must still follow good social work practice and applicable guidance; other evidence cannot excuse deliberate or negligent non-compliance.

Under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989, the question is whether a further assessment is necessary to provide material required for a proper decision. A court may obtain specialist evidence and adjourn a placement decision where that evidence could inform sibling contact and the child’s placement. A final care order may be made where adoption is conclusively required, although post-adoption contact remains unresolved.

Birmingham City Council brought care proceedings concerning two siblings. The judge refused the mother’s application for an independent parenting assessment, made final care orders, approved adoption for the younger child and long-term foster care for the older child, and ordered an attachment assessment before determining placement and contact issues.

The mother appealed against refusal of the assessment and the final orders. The local authority cross-appealed against the attachment assessment and adjournment of the placement application. The central issues were whether further parenting evidence was necessary, whether the attachment report was within the judge’s discretion, and whether a final care order could properly be made while contact arrangements remained open.

1. Disposition. Lady Justice Black, with Lord Justice Thorpe agreeing, dismissed both the mother’s appeal and the local authority’s cross-appeal. Permission to appeal was granted.
2. Parenting assessment. The issue under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 was whether the proposed assessment was necessary to provide the material required for a proper decision. The court was not required to insist on a textbook-compliant core assessment if the evidence as a whole enabled a proper determination. The judge had to consider deficiencies in the assessment, but could also consider subsequent social work evidence, expert evidence and oral evidence.
3. The local authority remained obliged to comply with good social work practice and the guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children. It could not deliberately or negligently omit an assessment on the assumption that cross-examination or other evidence would cure the omission. That qualification did not prevent the court from evaluating the actual evidential gaps in the context of the whole case.
4. The judge was entitled to rely on the psychologist’s evidence that therapeutic and alcohol-related interventions, sustained change and sufficient motivation were prerequisites to any meaningful assessment of parenting. The mother had not engaged with the recommended interventions, and the evidence showed continuing risks and an inability to recognise the need for change. A further parenting assessment would therefore take the case no further.
5. Attachment assessment and placement. It was within the judge’s case-management discretion to obtain a specialist report on the siblings’ attachment. The report could inform the nature of any contact, the impact of ending direct contact, the risk of disclosure of the younger child’s whereabouts, and the type of adoption placement required. The judge had properly considered Article 8, rehabilitation, the child’s welfare throughout life and relationships with relatives.
6. The judge was entitled to conclude that adoption was required for the younger child while leaving open the discrete question of what contact, if any, could operate within an adoption placement. The placement application could therefore be adjourned pending the report. The unresolved contact issue did not make the care plan inchoate or prevent a final care order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2011] EWCA Civ 1343: both the mother’s appeal and the local authority’s cross-appeal were dismissed.
• Birmingham Civil Justice Centre — HHJ Watson refused an independent parenting assessment, made final care orders, ordered an attachment assessment and adjourned the placement application.