M (A Child), Re

In care proceedings, adequate practical day-to-day parenting may not answer concerns arising from personality or psychiatric difficulties and their longer-term effect on a child’s emotional and social development. A residential assessment is unnecessary where practical parenting is not the fundamental issue and sufficient evidence is already available. A placement order remains a last resort, but may be justified where there is overriding necessity, no realistic prospect of sufficient parental improvement within the child’s welfare timescale, and a pressing need for a stable long-term decision. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that the appellate court would differ from the careful first-instance assessment.

The mother, acting in person, sought permission to appeal against orders made by HHJ Hallam in the Middlesbrough County Court following an eight-day hearing. The orders comprised a final care order and a placement order concerning her fourth child, LM.

She argued, among other matters, that judgment should not have been given in her absence while she was with her newborn son, who was receiving intensive care, and that a residential assessment should have been directed. An earlier judgment in the same proceedings had identified the central concerns as psychological and psychiatric, rather than an inability to provide practical parenting. The central issue was whether the grounds disclosed a realistic prospect of the Court of Appeal differing from the first-instance assessment.

1. Permission to appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal saw no realistic prospect of differing from HHJ Hallam’s careful and thorough assessment.
2. The central concern was not the mother’s ability to provide practical day-to-day care. It concerned her personality, character difficulties and the potential for unpredictable conduct to cause longer-term harm to the child’s emotional and social development. The mother’s ability to care adequately for young children therefore did not resolve the essential issue.
3. A residential assessment was directed principally to practical parenting. It was unnecessary where the court already knew enough about that issue and the fundamental questions were psychological and psychiatric.
4. The judge had correctly treated a placement order as an absolute last resort. The child was about 19 months old, had experienced several foster placements, and required a prompt decision about her long-term future. The judge was entitled to conclude that neither parent could care safely for the child within the relevant timescale and that neither was likely to improve sufficiently within the period relevant to the child’s welfare. Those findings established an overriding necessity for adoption.
5. The judge’s decision to hand down judgment in the mother’s absence did not provide a realistic ground for permission. The mother had attended the hearing, cross-examined witnesses and filed written submissions, and the judge considered that proceeding would cause no unfairness.
6. A psychological assessment obtained by the mother did not alter the position. It described unresolved underlying difficulties, a continuing risk of regression under stress and a long, uncertain therapeutic process. The subsequent intervention concerning the mother’s newborn child further undermined the submission that practical day-to-day care was unproblematic.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 18 March 2014, Lord Justice Tomlinson refused permission to appeal.
2. Middlesbrough County Court: HHJ Hallam made a final care order and a placement order after an eight-day hearing in October 2013.