J-A (Children)

In care proceedings, an appellate court should not require a first-instance judgment to articulate every consideration exhaustively. The question is whether the judge properly evaluated the competing placement options, the children’s welfare, risk, delay and available professional evidence. An assessment under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 need not be commissioned where it is unnecessary to resolve the proceedings. A placement with a parent who has perpetrated domestic violence is not automatically precluded, but the violence and its consequences must be treated as material factors. Final care orders may be made with continuing local-authority oversight where the evidence and care plan justify handing responsibility to the authority, even though further work remains.

The mother appealed against final care orders made by His Honour Judge Jenkins in the Leeds County Court on 16 October 2013 concerning MA and AA. The orders placed the children with their father, supported by his parents, under local-authority care orders.

The proceedings arose after serious non-accidental injuries were suffered by the children’s half-sibling, I. The judge had found that the mother had failed highly culpably to protect I, had remained involved with I’s violent father and had not given a satisfactory account of the injuries. He had also made historic findings of domestic violence against the children’s father, but later assessments supported his care of the children. The mother challenged the refusal of a further independent social-work assessment, the placement with the father, and the making of final orders.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the final care orders and the placement of MA and AA with their father under continuing local-authority intervention.

1. The court could not reopen the factual findings made in the May 2013 judgment because no permission to appeal that judgment had been sought. Those findings formed the proper foundation for the October decision.
2. The judge was entitled to reconsider the mother’s position at the later hearing, while treating the earlier findings as a substantial obstacle. The central issue was whether she had become truthful and cooperative about what had happened to I. Her further evidence remained unsatisfactory. Without an explanation of I’s injuries, future risk could not reliably be assessed. Her history of dishonesty, instability and failure to cooperate with professionals also remained material.
3. In the circumstances, the judge was entitled to conclude under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 that an independent social-work assessment was not necessary to assist resolution of the proceedings. The possibility that an assessment might produce useful evidence did not require further delay where it was unlikely to alter the outcome.
4. The father’s historic violence towards the mother created a genuine paradox, but did not automatically prevent placement with him. The violence, the circumstances in which it occurred, subsequent assessment and work, proposed support and effect on the children had to be evaluated as material factors. The different treatment of the parents’ failures to acknowledge the findings was justified because the mother’s silence concerned recent events and left the court unable to understand I’s injuries, whereas the father’s denial concerned known events from many years earlier.
5. The judge had sufficient evidence to regard the defects in the father’s plan as manageable. The NSPCC assessments, professional recommendations, extended-family support and continuing oversight under the care orders justified immediate progress for children harmed by prolonged uncertainty. A final order was not premature merely because further work remained.
6. The mother’s future contact was not determined on this appeal. Any application for increased contact should be made under section 34 of the Children Act 1989, when the children’s current circumstances and welfare factors could be considered.

The court emphasised judicial continuity and cautioned against expecting an experienced family judge to record every consideration that passed through his or her mind. The judge’s reasoning sufficiently demonstrated that the relevant features had been recognised and weighed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on appeal from final care orders made by His Honour Judge Jenkins in the Leeds County Court on 16 October 2013, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the placement with the father under care orders: [2014] EWCA Civ 936.