Z-O'C (Children), Re

In care proceedings, a court must not decide between rehabilitation, family placement and adoption on the basis of an evidential vacuum. If available parenting assessments are rejected, the court should reconsider whether further expert assessment is necessary, particularly where parental motivation and capacity are central. The welfare evaluation must identify realistic options, compare their benefits and detriments by reference to statutory welfare factors, select the option best serving each child and assess proportionality. Each child requires separate analysis. The need to avoid delay does not justify a premature decision without essential evidence. Procedural failures by advocates to seek clarification cannot require an appellate court to leave an unsafe welfare decision undisturbed.

The children's guardian and Hertfordshire County Council appealed against supervision orders made by His Honour Judge Wilding in care proceedings concerning two children. The judge found the threshold criteria satisfied but refused care orders and a placement order, intending that the children be rehabilitated to their mother and the younger child's father.

The judge rejected the local authority's parenting assessment and discounted parts of the guardian's analysis. The appeal concerned whether he could safely make final rehabilitation orders on the evidence available, or whether the proceedings should be adjourned for further assessment, particularly of the father's motivation, parenting capacity, family support and relationship with the older child.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to His Honour Judge Wright, the designated family judge, for rehearing. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether either child should be rehabilitated to the parents.
2. Further assessment. Having rejected the available parenting assessments, the judge was left without essential evidence for the welfare evaluation. He should have reconsidered the application for an independent social worker's report. Oral evidence from the parents could not safely replace expert parenting evidence where parental motivation was central and the psychological evidence identified a mismatch between verbal and non-verbal abilities and a tendency towards socially desirable presentation.
3. Welfare evaluation. The approach described in Re B-S, Re R (a child) [2014] EWCA 1625 and Re CM requires the court to identify realistic options, compare their benefits and detriments by reference to section 1(3) welfare factors, determine which option is in the children's best interests and then assess whether the resulting interference with family life is proportionate. The judge failed to conduct that analysis and included no adequate assessment of risk. The statutory requirements of section 1 of the Children Act 1989 remained central.
4. Separate analysis. The welfare of each child required separate consideration. The judge failed adequately to analyse the older child's position, including her relationship with the father, the effect of leaving her grandparents and whether the siblings should have separate placements.
5. Delay and procedure. Delay is inimical to welfare, but proceedings may properly extend beyond 26 weeks where further assessment is reasonable and necessary to avoid a premature welfare decision. The principle noted in Re NL (A Child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts And Reasons) supported that approach. Re A & L (Appeal Fact-Finding) [2011] EWCA Civ 1205; [2012] 1 FLR 134 did not establish that failure to seek clarification of defective reasons required dismissal of an appeal. Procedural omissions could not justify compromising the children's welfare.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and remitted to His Honour Judge Wright for rehearing and further assessment.
• Watford County Court: His Honour Judge Wilding refused care orders and a placement order and made supervision orders on 17 June 2014, with final supervision orders made on 27 June 2014.