G (A Child), Re

The Court of Appeal (Munby LJ) refused permission to appeal against a care order made by HHJ Coates. The appeal raised three principal complaints: alleged breaches of duties under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 6, 20, 29 and 149) in relation to the location and adaptation of an assessment; asserted error in the judge's handling of the aunt's assessments (including a contention that the aunt had been insufficiently assessed and that further assessment should have been ordered); and alleged failure to identify and explain the specific risks of placing the child with the aunt.

The court held that the factual premise of the Equality Act challenge was incorrect because it was the judge, not the local authority, who directed where the assessment should take place and what adaptations were required. The court upheld the judge's findings of fact, including that the aunt had sabotaged elements of assessment, and found no arguable error in the judge's case management: the judge had available a mass of expert evidence, had evaluated competing material and was entitled to conclude that further assessment would be inconsistent with the child's need for a settled placement. Because the case management decisions and findings of fact were not shown to be legally or plainly wrong, permission to appeal was refused.

Background and parties: The appeal arises from care proceedings concerning T, born February 2008. Following disclosures by an elder half-sister, HHJ Coates made factual findings of sexual abuse and thereafter, at a final welfare hearing, made a care order and approved a plan for adoption while adjourning a placement order. The applicant before the Court of Appeal was the maternal aunt, a registered disabled person, who sought permission to appeal against the care order and asked for a stay because the local authority intended to remove T from her care.

Procedural path: The matter proceeded from Brighton County Court (HHJ Coates) to the Court of Appeal. Munby LJ granted an initial short stay and listed oral argument; after hearing the parties he refused to extend the stay and on 15 October 2012 refused permission to appeal. This judgment sets out the reasons for refusing permission.

Nature of the application: The aunt sought permission to appeal the care order and alleged (i) breaches of the Equality Act 2010 in the conduct and location of assessments; (ii) errors in the judge's treatment of the evidence about the aunt's assessment and an argument that further assessment should have been required before a final determination; and (iii) insufficient identification of the risks of placing T with the aunt and inadequate reasons for approving a plan for adoption.

Issues for the court:

• Whether the judge erred in law in relation to alleged Equality Act duties and/or in directing the location and adaptations for assessment.
• Whether the judge was wrong to proceed to a final welfare decision without ordering further assessment of the aunt, or whether her findings about the aunt's conduct and motivation were plainly wrong.
• Whether the judge sufficiently identified the risks to T from placement with the aunt and gave adequate reasons for rejecting a special guardianship order.

Court's reasoning and disposition: The Court of Appeal emphasised the limited scope for appellate intervention in case management decisions. The factual premise of the Equality Act complaint was rejected because it was Judge Coates who had ordered the assessment location and handrails, not the local authority; the Equality Act arguments were raised belatedly and had not been pursued in the proceedings below. The judge's finding that the aunt sabotaged the assessment was a fact-finding conclusion open to her and therefore unassailable on appeal. On the question of further assessment, the appellate court concluded that Judge Coates had sufficient expert material and evidence to determine welfare without further delay, and that further assessment would have been contrary to T's need for a settled placement. Finally, the judgment sufficiently set out the judge's concerns about the aunt's capacity to meet T's emotional needs and the risks of placement within the dysfunctional maternal family. For these reasons permission to appeal was refused.

Procedural note: The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with HHJ Coates's case management and fact-finding absent any demonstrable error of law, denial of a fair trial or a plainly wrong conclusion.

Permission to appeal was refused. Munby LJ held that the Equality Act challenge was founded on an incorrect factual premise (the judge, not the local authority, had directed the assessment arrangements), that the judge's findings of fact (including that the aunt sabotaged assessments) were open to her and unassailable on appeal, and that there was no arguable error in her case management decision not to order further assessment because it would have been inconsistent with the child’s need for a settled placement.

Appeal from Brighton County Court (HHJ Coates) arising from fact-finding (14 August 2012) and final welfare/disposal judgment and care order (9 October 2012). Application for stay and permission to appeal filed 9 October 2012; initial short stay granted and renewed until determination of permission application; permission to appeal refused by Munby LJ (order dated 15 October 2012).