The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v SG & Ors

A final care hearing should be adjourned where the available time is insufficient to determine disputed threshold and welfare issues fairly, particularly where communication disabilities, extensive evidence, recently changed representation and incomplete assessments materially affect preparation and presentation of the case.

Pending the final decision, the court should not make an interim placement move that would be pre-judicial or pre-emptive. Where a child has lived in a settled placement, welfare requires the court first to determine the appropriate long-term placement before beginning a process of moving the child.

The local authority sought a care order concerning a child who had lived with short-term foster carers since infancy. A circuit judge had previously made care and placement orders on an adoption plan, but those orders were set aside on appeal after deficiencies were identified in the treatment of the parents’ disabilities.

The matter was listed for a fresh final hearing. At the proposed hearing date, the issues remained extensively disputed. The mother had recently changed legal representation, her new legal team had insufficient opportunity to prepare, and she challenged the existing assessment and sought further assessment of the proposed support from the maternal grandmother. The local authority and guardian supported an interim move towards placement with the father. The issues were whether the final hearing could fairly proceed and whether such an interim move should be directed.

1. Final hearing adjourned. The court could not fairly determine the care proceedings within the available week. The evidence was likely to require more time because of the parents’ communication difficulties. The proposed timetable for their evidence was unrealistic. The threshold criteria remained contested, as did the competing proposals for the child to live with the mother, the father or third parties.
2. The mother’s recent change of representation was a substantial additional reason for adjournment. Her new counsel had received the extensive papers only the previous week, had met the mother once, had not been able to take full instructions, and identified further material that was unavailable. The existing assessment of the mother and the possible supporting role of the maternal grandmother also required proper consideration.
3. Interim move refused. The court declined to direct that the child move progressively to the father pending the final hearing. Such an order would be pre-judgmental and pre-emptive because the court had not yet determined whether the child should live with the mother, the father or third parties.
4. The child had lived continuously for two years in a settled and secure foster placement. Her welfare required a firm decision about the appropriate long-term placement before any process of moving her was contemplated.
5. The final hearing was therefore adjourned to the first date the court could offer with two clear weeks allowed. The judge recognised the urgency of care proceedings but held that the available judicial resources did not permit an earlier fair hearing without displacing other cases concerning needy children. A later note recorded that the case was subsequently listed to start on 17 November 2014, with eight clear days allowed.

The circuit judge had made care and placement orders on an adoption plan. The Court of Appeal subsequently set those orders aside and remitted the proceedings for a fresh hearing. The present judgment concerned case management of the remitted proceedings and adjourned the final hearing.