G (A Child), Re

In care proceedings, deciding what assessments and other evidence are required is an evaluative case-management function of the trial judge. An appellate court should intervene only for an error of law or principle, unfairness, or a decision that is plainly wrong. It should not retrospectively case-manage proceedings or substitute its assessment of the evidence. A challenge based on the Equality Act 2010 must address the decision-maker responsible for the alleged breach. Where the trial judge has sufficient evidence, further assessment may properly be refused, particularly where delay conflicts with the child’s need for a settled placement. A welfare judgment is adequate if it explains the material risks, unmet needs and reasons for the proposed order.

The local authority sought a care order for T, a child born in February 2008, with a care plan providing for adoption. Following findings that T’s mother had sexually abused his half-sister, the maternal aunt sought to care for T under a special guardianship order. The final welfare hearing took place in September 2012. On 9 October 2012, Brighton County Court made the care order and approved the care plan, but adjourned the placement-order application because the mother’s litigation representative had not been served.

The aunt applied for permission to appeal and a stay. She challenged the assessment arrangements, alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010, argued that further assessment was required, and contended that the judge had not sufficiently explained the risks and welfare analysis.

Application for permission to appeal refused.

1. The alleged breaches of sections 20, 29 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010 did not provide an arguable challenge to the care order. The aunt’s factual premise was wrong: Judge Coates, exercising her judicial discretion in the care proceedings, had decided where the assessment should take place and what adaptations were required. Any challenge had to be directed to that judicial decision, not framed as a challenge to an unconnected decision of the local authority.
2. Judge Coates was entitled to direct that the assessment take place away from the maternal grandmother’s household and to require handrails at the mother’s home. The order had not been challenged when made. The detailed statutory arguments and proposed alternative assessment were raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal. The appellate court could not be asked to conduct retrospective case management.
3. Determining what assessments and evidence are needed for the final hearing is an evaluative task for the case-management judge. Appellate intervention is limited to cases involving an error of law or principle, denial of a fair trial, or a decision that is plainly wrong. Judge Coates had substantial expert and assessment evidence available to her and was entitled to find that the aunt had sabotaged the directed assessment. She was also entitled to conclude that further assessment was unnecessary and inconsistent with T’s need for a settled placement without further delay.
4. The Court of Appeal stressed the need for restraint when reviewing case-management and welfare decisions, referring to [1985] 1 WLR 647 and, in particular, Lord Hoffmann’s speech in [1999] 1 WLR 1360. It should not interfere merely because it might have evaluated the evidence differently or because the trial judge had a different view of the appropriate course.
5. Judge Coates’s judgment adequately explained the risks of placing T with the aunt, the emotional and other needs that might not be met, and the reasons for rejecting special guardianship and approving the care plan for adoption. The stay was not extended, and the local authority was free to implement the care order.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal and a stay were sought from the care order. The application for permission was refused on 15 October 2012, with reasons handed down on 31 October 2012.
2. Brighton County Court: On 9 October 2012, Her Honour Judge Coates made a care order and approved the local authority’s care plan, while adjourning the placement-order application.