S (A Child)

A placement order does not require investigation of every conceivable alternative, regardless of its prospects of success or realistic application. The court must make a realistic appraisal of the parent’s prospects of gaining genuine insight into the risks, safeguarding the child within the child’s timescales, accepting necessary support and sustaining any required separation. Where the risk is very high and no available service could sufficiently reduce it, adoption may be the only realistic option without awaiting a further assessment. An appellate court should not interfere with findings that were open to the judge and were not perverse.

The mother appealed against a placement order concerning her youngest child, D, made by Her Honour Judge Newton in the Family Court sitting in Manchester. D had previously returned to his parents’ care and had then thrived, but serious allegations and evidence concerning the father’s sexual offending led to renewed care proceedings and D’s removal.

The local authority initially agreed to an assessment and safe-care work for the mother. The proposed resource was unavailable, and the authority later abandoned further assessment after evidence indicated that the parents’ relationship had continued despite agreements restricting contact. The central issue was whether the mother had been wrongly deprived of an opportunity to demonstrate that she could safely care for D alone.

Appeal dismissed unanimously.

1. The mother did not challenge the factual findings as unavailable on the evidence or identify an error of law. The appeal therefore turned on whether the judge should have required the proposed assessment before deciding that adoption was the only realistic option.
2. The assessment and safe-care work had been contemplated on an initial factual foundation. Later evidence showed that the mother had continued her relationship with the father and had breached agreements restricting his contact with D. The proposed assessment was therefore founded on circumstances that had materially changed.
3. The first-instance judge had identified the relevant issues: the risk of significant harm, the mother’s ability to gain sufficient insight and safeguard D within his timescales, and whether services could sufficiently reduce the risk. Her conclusions that the risk was very high and that no appropriate services were available were rationally open to her.
4. The decision in Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 corrected the misconception, arising after the reporting of Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 and Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, that every possible option had to be investigated regardless of its prospects or realistic application.
5. The required approach was a realistic appraisal of the mother’s prospects of acquiring genuine insight into the risk posed by the father, doing so within the short and medium term, accepting support and sustaining separation from him. The judge’s findings of continuing involvement, dishonesty and lack of insight meant that rehabilitation could not safely occur within D’s timescales. The placement order was accordingly justified.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The mother’s appeal against the placement order was dismissed unanimously: [2015] EWCA Civ 489.
• Family Court sitting in Manchester — Her Honour Judge Newton made a placement order after finding a very high risk of harm and no viable service-based alternative capable of meeting the child’s needs within his timescales.