O (A Child)

In care and placement proceedings, reasons should explain how findings about a proposed carer translate into an inability to meet the child’s needs and why the child’s welfare requires the proposed order. An extempore judgment must be read as a whole. An appellate court generally assumes that the judge understood the applicable test and evidence unless the contrary is shown. Where the essential reasoning remains unclear, the appellate court may invite the judge to amplify the reasons before deciding permission to appeal. A challenge to an assessment based on oral evidence and an accepted social-work report faces a high hurdle unless the conclusion was untenable or unavailable on the evidence.

The father sought permission to appeal against care and placement orders made by HHJ Tolson QC at Oxford Combined Court Centre. The mother did not seek to care for the child. The father sought to care for the child himself in England or Nigeria, alternatively proposing placement with his brother and his wife in Nigeria. The judge rejected those options and concluded that adoption was required.

The proposed appeal challenged the assessment of the Nigerian relatives, the proportionality analysis, and the reasons for ruling out the father, including findings concerning his circumstances, cannabis use and motivation. The Court of Appeal deferred a final decision on permission and invited the trial judge to amplify his reasoning concerning the father’s ability to care for the child.

1. Permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal did not finally determine the father’s application. It directed that the matter return after the trial judge had considered whether to amplify his reasoning.
2. Reading an extempore judgment. A judgment delivered immediately after a lengthy hearing should be read as a whole. The appellate court should not be receptive to arguments based solely on particular wording. It should assume that the judge was aware of the applicable legal test and the evidence unless the contrary is demonstrated.
3. Reasons concerning the father. The trial judge had identified both positive and negative features of the father’s case. However, the judgment did not clearly explain how matters such as his relationships, cannabis use and motivation translated into an inability to care for the child, or why those matters meant that the child’s welfare would be compromised in his care. The Court of Appeal considered that amplification might be needed before deciding whether the appeal had any future.
4. Nigerian relatives. The Court of Appeal was not presently persuaded that the challenge to the assessment of the aunt and uncle had realistic prospects. The judge had heard oral evidence from the aunt and the assessor and had accepted the assessor’s report as thorough and impressive. He was entitled to consider the aunt’s initial reluctance as relevant to the strength of her future emotional commitment. That approach was not necessarily inconsistent with recognising that she had later changed her mind.
5. The invitation to amplify was directed principally to the father’s case. The transcript was to be expedited, and the matter was to return to the Court of Appeal, preferably by a further oral application.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 24 September 2015, Lady Justice Black deferred final determination of permission to appeal, expedited the transcript and invited HHJ Tolson QC to amplify his reasoning concerning the father’s ability to care for the child.
2. Oxford Combined Court Centre: On 19 June 2015, HHJ Tolson QC made care and placement orders and rejected care by the father or by the proposed Nigerian relatives.