Z (A Child: Independent Social Work Assessment), Re

A parental assessment in care proceedings must be fair, robust and thorough. It must assess parenting ability, the support available, the parent’s ability to acquire necessary skills, and the realistic role the parent may play in the child’s life. Where expert evidence is sought, it is permitted only if it is necessary to assist the court. In adoption cases, the court must evaluate all realistic options by a global, holistic balance-sheet approach. Adoption is a last resort and must not be assumed merely because another placement is preferred. The same analysis applies to post-placement contact. A proposed kinship carer cannot be ruled out on the basis of an inadequate preliminary assessment, particularly where language and cultural barriers have affected communication.

Leicester City Council applied for care and placement orders concerning Z, a two-year-old child who had sustained serious non-accidental injuries. Z’s mother accepted responsibility and had been convicted and sentenced. The father was not the perpetrator but the local authority sought findings that he had failed to recognise Z’s injuries and obtain medical attention.

The father sought permission for an independent social worker to undertake a parenting assessment after the local authority’s social work assessment concluded that he could not care for Z. He also wished to maintain a meaningful relationship with her. The central issues were whether further assessment was necessary, whether the local authority’s care planning and kinship assessment were adequate, and whether the proposed adoption plan could properly be evaluated.

1. Application for independent assessment allowed. Expert evidence is admissible under Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 25.1 only where it is necessary to assist the court. Necessity has the imperative meaning identified in Re H-L (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655. The court must also consider the effect on the timetable and the overriding objective.
2. The local authority’s assessment of the father was inadequate. It was a social work assessment, not a parenting assessment. It did not test his ability to acquire the skills required to care for Z, consider the support available in England, or fairly assess the significance of his positive and teachable conduct during contact. Relevant information had not been translated into Punjabi, and he had not been given a proper opportunity to meet the professionals caring for Z. The assessment had also proceeded on the mistaken assumption that he intended to return to India.
3. Where adoption is proposed, the local authority and guardian must address every realistic option and analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each. The court must undertake a global and holistic evaluation, not reject options sequentially until adoption is left standing. Adoption remains a last resort. Long-term foster care, special guardianship, residence and the nature of continuing contact required separate consideration. The guidance in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 was not adequately followed.
4. The viability assessment of the paternal grandmother was also inadequate. A Punjabi-speaking relative in India could not fairly be ruled out after two telephone conversations, without translated papers and without proper assessment of available services and support in India. The court required further case management on that issue.
5. The parenting assessment was to proceed on the basis that, if successful, the father would care for Z in England. The final care plan was not determined at this stage.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in the present litigation.