F (Children) (Rev 1)

A direction under s37 of the Children Act 1989 has a specific protective purpose. It requires an investigation of whether care or supervision proceedings, services or other action should be considered; it is not a general welfare report. Once an adequate report identifies the local authority’s intentions, the private-law court should determine welfare with the assistance of the guardian or other welfare evidence. A deficient report may require a further direction, but its adequacy is a case-management decision. A judge can fairly assess a parent’s case despite professional marginalisation where the judge recognises it, factors it into the evaluation and independently considers the parent’s evidence and presentation.

This was the father’s appeal from orders made by His Honour Judge Black in private-law proceedings concerning his two children. The judge granted residence to the mother, prohibited direct contact, limited the father’s exercise of parental responsibility and made an order under s91(14). Permission to appeal was granted on two issues: whether the s37 report was satisfactory, and whether the father’s alleged marginalisation by professionals impaired the judge’s assessment. Permission on the remaining grounds was considered with the appeal. The central questions were whether a further report was required and whether the judge had properly evaluated the father’s case.

1. Disposition. Lady Justice King dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Ryder and Lord Justice Tomlinson agreed. Permission to appeal on the remaining grounds was refused because they were largely make-weight complaints with no real prospect of success.
2. Section 37 report. The purpose of a direction under s37 of the Children Act 1989 is specific. It is to enable the local authority to assess whether care or supervision proceedings, services or other action are required. It is not a general welfare report, although there may be substantial overlap with a welfare inquiry. The statutory structure, including s41, anticipates that the child’s guardian will conduct the welfare analysis and make recommendations in the private-law proceedings.
3. The first report was unsatisfactory because the father had not been seen. The judge correctly required a further report. The second report considered the relevant risks, protective factors and the local authority’s intentions, and concluded that care proceedings were unnecessary. Once that information had been provided, the judge was entitled to proceed with the private-law dispute. The adequacy of the report was a case-management matter within the judge’s discretion. The social worker’s failure to read every document did not invalidate the report where she had a full understanding of the history and the parties’ complaints.
4. Professional marginalisation. The judge recognised that the father had been marginalised by some professionals and factored that criticism into her assessment. Her decision nevertheless turned on the father’s own evidence and presentation, including his lack of empathy and insight into the child’s needs. She was therefore well placed to assess his applications despite shortcomings in professional consultation.
5. The principles concerning further s37 directions stated in Re K (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1549 and the limits on the court’s power to make a care or supervision order stated in Nottinghamshire County Council v P [1993] 2 FLR 134 formed part of the relevant legal framework.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Appeal dismissed on 13 November 2014. The court rejected the challenges concerning the s37 report and the alleged marginalisation of the father. Permission on the remaining grounds was refused.
2. Portsmouth County Court. His Honour Judge Black made orders on 9 April 2014, following judgment delivered on 15 April 2014, granting residence to the mother, prohibiting direct contact, limiting the father’s parental responsibility and dismissing his applications for residence and contact.