W (A Child)

On an application for permission to appeal in care and adoption proceedings, the question is whether there is a real prospect of success by reason of an error or misdirection below. A parent’s satisfactory day-to-day care does not prevent the threshold for state intervention being met where the evidence shows that, at the relevant time, the parent cannot safeguard the child from risks posed by abusive or exploitative associates. A care order and placement order may then follow where the child’s welfare requires them. The court also stressed the importance of early practical and therapeutic support for a vulnerable parent expecting another child.

The mother sought permission to appeal orders made by HHJ Rundell in Worcester County Court on 11 October. The orders placed her 15- or 16-month-old daughter under a care order and made a placement order, dispensing with the mother’s consent to adoption. The mother relied in part on a change of solicitors and lack of ready access to papers. The central issue was whether the first-instance judge had erred so that the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

Application refused. Ward LJ held that the mother’s application did not show a real prospect of success. On a permission application, the Court of Appeal must examine whether the judge below misdirected himself or otherwise erred.

1. The judge’s threshold finding was supported by overwhelming evidence. Although the mother’s day-to-day care was not faulted, her vulnerability, low self-esteem, and history of association with men who exploited or abused her meant that she was not then able to safeguard a young child from the resulting risks. The threshold was therefore crossed.
2. The care order followed from that finding. Adoption was a drastic step, but the judge was entitled to make the placement order and dispense with consent if the child’s welfare required it. The appellate court could identify no error in that reasoning.
3. The mother’s change of solicitors and lack of ready access to papers did not establish an appealable error. The judge had recognised the disadvantage and made appropriate allowances. Sympathy for her circumstances could not substitute for a demonstrated legal error.

Ward LJ directed that the transcript be sent to the local authority and the mother. He urged the authority to provide help under Children Act Part 3, including support to obtain recommended therapy and prepare for the new baby, and cautioned against resort to remedies under Part 4 before that help was provided. That guidance was ancillary to the refusal of permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 17 January 2013, Ward LJ refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal: [2013] EWCA Civ 61.
• Worcester County Court — HHJ Rundell made a care order and a placement order in respect of the child, dispensing with the mother’s consent to adoption.