G (A Child)

In care proceedings, the need to place a child with a parent attracts great weight, but it does not displace a careful assessment of safety. A trial judge may rely on a reasoned expert risk assessment based on family history, interview evidence and reported progress, even where the assessment predates the hearing. Proposed safeguards and support must be evaluated critically. An appellate court will be slow to interfere with findings based on witnesses seen and assessed at trial. Where the decision rests on cogent reasoning, a proper evidential basis and falls within the reasonable range of outcomes, a proposed appeal has no real prospect of success.

The mother sought permission to appeal from a decision of HHJ Brown in Watford County Court dated 16 October 2012. In interim care proceedings concerning her young daughter, the judge concluded that the mother could not safely care for the child, effectively ending the prospect of reunification.

The proposed appeal alleged insufficient weight to the child’s relationship with her mother, inadequate recognition of the mother’s progress after an expert psychological assessment, and failure to consider safeguards including support, supervision and gradual reunification. Lady Justice Black considered the renewed oral application. The central issue was whether the trial judge’s evaluative conclusion disclosed an arguable error warranting a further hearing.

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The trial judge had undertaken a careful assessment of the evidence. She recognised the powerful importance of placing the child with her mother if that was possible and safe, but was entitled to place the mother’s past conduct in its proper context. That history included prolonged deceit and dishonesty and justified careful consideration of the risks identified by the local authority and the expert.
2. The judge was entitled to accept Dr Blumenthal’s evidence. His opinion was based on the mother’s history, his interview with her and the changes reported since the assessment. The fact that the assessment had taken place several months before the hearing did not make it outdated, particularly because he had considered the claimed changes and the judge found his reasoning convincing.
3. The judge was entitled to assess critically the proposed support network. The evidence supported concerns that the proposed supporters did not recognise the risks and that the mother might not be sufficiently honest or forthright with them. A written agreement or other alternative strategy therefore did not have to be accepted as securing safe and consistent care.
4. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of witnesses whom the judge saw give evidence and evaluated against the whole case. The Court of Appeal could not properly substitute its own assessment where the reasoning was cogent, the evidential basis was proper and the conclusion fell within the reasonable bounds of decision-making.
5. The proposed grounds accordingly had no real prospect of success. The formal order was: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed oral application for permission to appeal, Lady Justice Black refused permission. The decision is reported at [2013] EWCA Civ 54.
• Watford County Court: On 16 October 2012, HHJ Brown determined in interim care proceedings that the mother would not be able to care for her daughter.