M (A Child), Re

A residential assessment in care proceedings should be directed only where it is necessary for the just resolution of the proceedings. It is not necessary where the parent’s practical day-to-day parenting is sufficiently understood and the fundamental issues are psychological or psychiatric. Appellate intervention requires the court to ask whether the first-instance judge was wrong, rather than plainly wrong. Unchallenged earlier findings may inform subsequent case-management and interim-care decisions.

The mother sought permission to appeal from HHJ Hallam’s case-management decision of 23 May 2013 in care proceedings concerning her infant daughter. She had applied under section 38(6) of the Children Act for a residential assessment, proposing that the child live with her during the assessment.

She also said that she had sought discharge of the interim care order and substitution of an interim supervision order. The hearing note did not record that issue, so the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis that it had not been considered. Earlier decisions by Cobb J had maintained interim care arrangements. The central issue was whether HHJ Hallam was wrong to conclude that a residential assessment was unnecessary.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The proposed challenge to the interim care order did not get off the ground because the relevant decisions had been made by Cobb J, not by HHJ Hallam on 23 May 2013. The court also found no adequate record that an interim supervision order had been sought or considered at that hearing.
2. Residential assessment. Under the rules then in force, a residential assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act could be sanctioned only if it was necessary for the just resolution of the proceedings. Such an assessment was directed principally to practical parenting. HHJ Hallam had concluded that the mother’s practical day-to-day parenting was sufficiently understood and was not a fundamental issue. The fundamental issues were psychological and psychiatric. It was therefore open to her to conclude that the assessment would not provide useful additional evidence and was not necessary.
3. Appellate approach. Following Re B [2013] UKSC 33, the applicable question was whether HHJ Hallam was wrong, rather than whether she was plainly wrong. On that approach, the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
4. Earlier findings. The findings made in the 2012 care proceedings had not been appealed and remained on the record. Cobb J and HHJ Hallam were entitled to use them as a starting point for later case-management and interim-care decisions. The mother remained free to make a further application, but it should state clearly the accommodation and supervision arrangements proposed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 26 June 2013, McFarlane LJ refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal.
2. Teesside Combine Court — HHJ Hallam refused the mother’s application for a residential assessment on 23 May 2013.