T (A Child)

Permission to appeal should be refused where the applicant identifies no arguable error, unlawful conduct or other valid ground challenging the first-instance decision. Bare allegations of bias or injustice, unsupported by particulars, are insufficient. An appeal is not an opportunity to introduce factual issues or obtain a fresh report on matters that could and should have been raised below. This is particularly so where the evidence was left materially unchallenged at the original hearing. An adjournment will not be granted to pursue such material without a proper explanation of its relevance to the proposed appeal.

The father sought permission to appeal orders made by Wolverhampton County Court placing his young daughter in the care of the local authority, dispensing with parental consent to placement for adoption, and making a placement for adoption order. He alleged that the judge had been biased and that the proceedings had produced an injustice. He also sought adjournments to obtain a local authority report, a transcript of the lower-court hearing and to rely on adverse weather and medical advice. He did not attend the permission hearing and provided no developed grounds or skeleton argument. The central question was whether he had identified any arguable basis for challenging the orders.

Lord Justice McFarlane refused both the adjournment applications and the application for permission to appeal.

1. Adjournments and new material. The proposed local authority report did not go to the merits of the proposed appeal. Questions about whether contact had been positive, negative or more nuanced could and should have been raised before the first-instance judge. They could not be introduced for the first time by generating a fresh report. The later requests for a transcript and reliance on adverse weather and medical advice were also unsupported by an adequate explanation or medical evidence.
2. Grounds of appeal. Allegations of bias and injustice are serious and require an identifiable basis. The father’s bare assertion that the judge was biased, without explaining any error, wrongful conduct or unlawful decision-making, disclosed no valid ground of appeal. The absence of a skeleton argument or substantive challenge reinforced that conclusion.
3. Evidence below. The first-instance decision relied in part on photographic evidence of the condition of the family home. The parents had been legally represented but had not materially challenged the local authority’s factual evidence, called the relevant witnesses for cross-examination or advanced a positive case beyond asserting that the evidence was lies. The father could not use the permission application to remedy that failure.
4. Underlying welfare assessment. The court identified as central to assessing the prospects of safe parental care whether the parents accepted that the care provided was inadequate and needed to change, and whether they would engage with professional assistance. On the material before the court, there had been a total denial of the problems, no acceptance of the need for change and no effective positive parenting assessment. Given the child’s age and the absence of an alternative family placement, the judge considered that the care and adoption orders were the only viable safeguards.
5. The proposed appeal was therefore wholly without merit, and the formal order was: Application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal refused: [2013] EWCA Civ 128.
2. Wolverhampton County Court — On 11 December 2012, HHJ Bush made a care order, dispensed with parental consent to placement for adoption, and made a placement for adoption order.