D (Child), Re:

In care and placement proceedings, a judgment must contain clear, reasoned and sufficiently nuanced findings on disputed facts. The court must assess both positive and negative evidence and explain what it indicates about future harm and welfare.

The need to conclude proceedings promptly, including within the 26-week timetable, does not displace proper procedure. Where the local authority’s factual case is challenged, it must adduce proper evidence to establish the facts relied upon. Material factual disputes cannot always be resolved on hearsay relayed through social workers.

The mother appealed against care and placement orders made in respect of her young child by the Family Court at Canterbury. The local authority relied on instability in accommodation, the mother’s chaotic lifestyle, her difficulty prioritising the child’s needs, and alleged emotional abuse.

The appeal challenged the adequacy of the judge’s factual findings, treatment of disputed evidence, assessment of the mother’s positive parenting, and welfare analysis. The central issue was whether the judgment sufficiently established the factual and welfare basis for the orders sought.

1. Appeal allowed and orders set aside. The case was remitted to the Family Court for rehearing with directions for expedition. The rehearing judge was to approach the case afresh and was not to be influenced by the Court of Appeal’s observations.
2. The first-instance judge had not adequately analysed the disputed factual issues. In particular, he recorded the history of the mother’s accommodation but did not determine her detailed account of why each placement had ended. That omission was material because it was necessary to assess what was attributable to the mother and whether similar problems were likely to recur.
3. The need for expedition and the 26-week timetable did not displace proper procedure. Where the local authority’s factual case was challenged, it had to adduce proper evidence to establish the facts relied upon. Some factual issues could not be resolved merely on hearsay evidence relayed by social workers. The court referred to Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11, Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222, and Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963.
4. The welfare evaluation was inadequate. The judge failed to place positive evidence about the mother’s care, including evidence from the mother and baby placement and health visitor, into the balance alongside the criticisms. He also insufficiently addressed the possibility of change as the mother matured.
5. The judge needed to resolve the conflicting evidence about whether the child had already suffered harm, identify the type of harm likely to result from the problems found, and explain why that harm was likely to occur in future. Without those findings, the judgment did not lay a sufficient foundation for the conclusion that adoption was required.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the Family Court at Canterbury was allowed on 15 September 2015. The care and placement orders were set aside and the case was remitted for rehearing. Reasons were given on 18 November 2015.
• Family Court at Canterbury: Care and placement orders were made by His Honour Judge Scarratt on 16 December 2014 in case ME14C01575.