W (Children)

In child welfare proceedings, a first-instance judge need not investigate local-authority history line by line or address every item in the statutory welfare checklist separately. A judgment read as a whole is sufficient where it demonstrates a fair, holistic evaluation of the evidence, risks, their management and the children’s welfare.

Social workers and guardians should not give expert opinions on mental illness or its recurrence without appropriate expertise. However, a court may assess likely future stress or mental-health difficulties without current psychiatric evidence where there is cogent evidence of past illness and stress responses. An appellate court should not disturb an evidentially supported welfare evaluation merely because the outcome is grave.

Two young boys were subject to care and placement orders made by His Honour Judge Curl in Norwich County Court on 27 January 2014. Their parents accepted that they could not care for them. The paternal grandmother, who had played a substantial role in caring for one child, proposed increased contact and rehabilitation to her care. The local authority and Children’s Guardian opposed that course.

She appealed, alleging procedural unfairness in the treatment of historical concerns about her parenting, insufficient mental-health evidence, failure to apply the welfare checklist and disproportionate reliance on adoption. The central issue was whether the factual findings and welfare evaluation supporting adoption were legally and evidentially sustainable.

Disposition

Lady Justice Macur delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Briggs agreeing. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Historical evidence. The first-instance judge was not required to identify and investigate every historical event in the local authority’s records independently. He had read the relevant records, warned himself that social-services records could contain unreliable hearsay and malicious allegations, and considered the chronology together with the grandmother’s written and oral responses. The important issue was not the detail of every incident, but her inability to come to terms with the past and gain insight into its effect on her children.
2. Mental-health evidence. The court agreed that the independent social worker and Children’s Guardian were not competent to give expert opinions on the existence of mental illness or disorder, or on likely recurrence, without appropriate expertise. Nevertheless, there was cogent evidence of past mental ill-health and reactions to stress. The judge was entitled to consider, from the evidence as a whole, the likely stress of therapy, parenting the boys and other substantial responsibilities, and to conclude that the grandmother was susceptible to mental-health problems, anxiety and stress.
3. Welfare evaluation. The judge expressly considered the welfare checklists under the Children Act 1989 and Children and Adoption Act 2002. A judgment need not address every checklist factor individually and repetitively where, read as a whole, it shows that the factors were considered in the round and weighed with the boys’ family-life interests.
4. The conclusion that adoption was in the boys’ best interests was supported by the evidence and could not be characterised as wrong or disproportionate. The appeal therefore remained dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 20 November 2014, the court dismissed the appeal from the care and placement orders.
• Norwich County Court — His Honour Judge Curl made care and placement orders on 27 January 2014.