C (A Child)

On an appeal from a child welfare decision, the Court of Appeal must not substitute its own assessment for that of the trial judge. It is exceptional to find the judge plainly wrong, especially where the complaint is only that different weight should have been given to relevant factors. Where the alternatives are a final placement and adoption order or further assessment involving delay, and the evidence shows that delay would harm a young child, choosing finality may be a lawful best-interests decision.

The grandparents appealed against Mr Recorder Oldham’s decision in the Sheffield County Court on 2 July 2012 concerning the future of their seven-month-old grandson, Max. The local authority’s plan, supported by the child’s guardian, was for a final care order and placement for adoption. The grandparents sought further assessment of the quality of care they could offer. The threshold in section 31 of the Children Act had been crossed and was not challenged. The central issue was whether the Recorder had erred in refusing further assessment and making final orders despite the grandparents’ positive parenting history.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously.

1. Appellate restraint. Lord Justice Thorpe held that an appellate court must be guarded against substituting its own discretion for that of the trial judge, who had seen and heard the witnesses. It is exceptional for the Court of Appeal to find a judge plainly wrong, particularly where the complaint is that too much weight was given to one relevant factor and too little to another (paras [9]-[10]).
2. Effect of delay. The Recorder’s task was to decide the order in the child’s best interests, which may involve choosing the least worst outcome. By trial, the realistic alternatives were further assessment of the grandparents or finality through care and placement orders. Mr Justice Hedley, agreeing with Thorpe LJ, considered that the statutory emphasis on the detrimental effect of delay to a small child entitled the Recorder to choose finality (paras [11]-[12]).
3. Further assessment. The expert psychologist and the guardian considered further delay detrimental to Max. The proposed assessment had no sufficiently useful or defined scope, and the relevant family history had already been investigated. The request was first advanced at the hearing, strengthening the concern that it would cause avoidable delay. The Recorder was therefore entitled to conclude that there was no real alternative to the local authority’s proposal (paras [5]-[8]).
4. The care order and placement order consequently stood. Lord Justice Lewison agreed without adding further reasons (para [13]).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — on appeal from Sheffield County Court, dismissed the appeal: [2012] EWCA Civ 1787.
• Sheffield County Court — Mr Recorder Oldham made a final care order and accepted the local authority’s plan for placement for adoption on 2 July 2012.