London Borough of Ealing v JM & Ors

Permission to appeal in care and placement proceedings should be refused where the proposed ground has no realistic prospect of success, particularly where it challenges findings made after an extensive hearing by a judge who observed the family over a prolonged period. In children proceedings, the court must also give substantial weight to the damaging effect of delay. A proposed appeal may nevertheless require adjournment where the available material leaves a material uncertainty about the children’s proposed placement, sibling separation, contact arrangements, or current adoptability. The court may require the local authority and guardian to provide clear and up-to-date information before deciding those issues.

The local authority proceedings concerned two young siblings. After a 14-day fact-finding and outcome process, District Judge Bowman made care and placement orders following findings that the mother had deliberately injured both children and that the parents had exposed them to inappropriate sexual behaviour. The maternal grandmother and father sought permission to appeal. The proposed grounds challenged the assessment of the grandmother, the possibility of placement with the father separately from the mother, the proportionality of adoption, placement together or separately, sibling contact, and the children’s adoptability.

Mr Justice Holman considered the application on the limited documents available to him. The central issues were whether any proposed ground had a sufficient prospect of success and whether the available information was adequate to determine the placement-related grounds.

1. Permission refused on grounds 1, 2 and 6. The complaints about the assessment of the grandmother and the possibility of placement with the father had no sufficient prospect of success. The district judge had heard evidence over 14 days and was particularly well placed to assess the family members and their relationships. The grandmother’s proposed further assessment was raised too late, especially after the parties had confirmed that the identified assessments and experts were sufficient to conclude the matter.
2. The proposed appeal based on the minor nature of the children’s injuries had no prospect of success. The injuries were deliberately inflicted on both children and included boot-mark injuries to a very young child. The district judge had expressly recognised that the injuries were relatively minor, but was entitled to consider the wider evidence of deliberate abuse and the mother’s continuing denial.
3. The court emphasised the damaging effect of prolongation and delay in children proceedings. A further assessment would probably cause at least six months’ additional delay, which was a significant consideration against granting permission.
4. Permission on grounds 3, 4 and 5 was neither granted nor refused. The available material did not make clear whether the children were to be placed together or separately, what sibling contact would be arranged if they were separated, or whether suitable adopters remained likely to be found. Those issues required clear, informed and up-to-date information from the local authority and the children’s guardian.
5. The application on those outstanding grounds was adjourned to 29 April 2014, when the local authority and guardian were required to attend and be represented.

• High Court (Family Division): Permission to appeal from District Judge Bowman’s decision and order of 7 January 2014 was refused on grounds 1, 2 and 6. Consideration of grounds 3, 4 and 5 was adjourned to 29 April 2014.