C (A Child), Re

Care proceedings must accommodate a parent’s hearing or cognitive disability so that assessments, participation and judicial evaluation are effective. Profound deafness may require specialist interpretation, cultural brokerage and a Deaf Relay Interpreter. Ordinary sign-language interpretation may be insufficient.

Disability-related needs should be identified when proceedings begin. Expert advice, special measures and funding should be addressed at the case management hearing. The timetable may be extended modestly where the usual deadline would prevent a meaningful assessment. A failure to make appropriate provision may render final care and placement orders unsafe.

The parents appealed against full care and placement for adoption orders concerning their young daughter. The father was profoundly deaf and communicated through British Sign Language. The mother had low cognitive functioning together with speech and hearing difficulties.

The local authority and the court had not adequately adapted their communication and assessment processes. The father had initially purported to consent to accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 without professional interpretation. Later parenting assessments and court participation did not sufficiently accommodate either parent’s disability.

Following specialist evidence about the resulting disadvantages, all parties agreed that the appeals should be allowed. The central issue was the consequence of the inadequate assessments and participation arrangements, together with the guidance required for comparable care proceedings.

1. Disposition. The parents’ appeals were allowed unanimously. The placement for adoption order and full care order were set aside. An interim care order was substituted, and the proceedings were remitted for a complete rehearing before a different judge.

2. The processes used below had not adequately accommodated the parents’ disabilities. Specialist evidence identified substantial deficiencies in the assessment of the profoundly deaf father and in his communication with professionals and the court. The mother’s learning and hearing disabilities had likewise not been given adequate prominence. The resulting evaluation of the parents’ capacity to care for the child could not stand.

3. McFarlane LJ explained, by way of guidance, that communication with a profoundly deaf person is an exercise in interpretation rather than simple translation. It may require bespoke professional support, cultural brokerage and a Deaf Relay Interpreter. A relay interpreter acts as an intermediary between the sign-language interpreter and the deaf person. The provision of an ordinary interpreter may therefore be insufficient.

4. A hearing disability must be identified by the parent’s representatives at the earliest opportunity. The representatives and local authority should notify the court when proceedings are issued. Special measures should then be considered at the first case management hearing. Adapting and endorsing the guidance in Wiltshire Council v N and Ors [2013] EWHC 3502 (Fam), the court said that expert advice about the disability’s impact should ordinarily be addressed at that hearing. Any application to instruct an expert should be properly made under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

5. Funding responsibilities should be resolved at the earliest stage. The Legal Aid Agency ordinarily funds interpretation for taking legal instructions, HM Courts and Tribunals Service funds interpretation in court, and the local authority funds interpretation during social-work meetings and assessments. Each body must be informed promptly where enhanced specialist support is required.

6. The standard timetable must not prevent an effective and meaningful assessment. A modest extension may be justified where disability-related needs cannot properly be addressed within the usual period. The court, local authority and CAFCASS must perform their functions consistently with the Equality Act 2010; adequate regard to disability is mandatory.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The court allowed both appeals under [2014] EWCA Civ 128, set aside the full care and placement for adoption orders, substituted an interim care order and remitted the case for a complete rehearing before a different judge.

2. High Court, Family Division: His Honour Judge Turner QC made a full care order, dispensed with the parents’ consent to adoption and made a placement for adoption order after concluding that neither parent could provide the child’s future care.