T (Children)

In care proceedings, the court must control its own timetable and conclude the application within the statutory period. Any extension must be expressly justified, welfare-sensitive and no longer than eight weeks at a time.

Where judgment is substantially delayed, the court must consider whether the evidence has become stale. Updating evidence may be necessary where the child has remained with a parent and parental capacity remains a live and potentially changing issue. The question is fact-sensitive; no arbitrary deadline applies in every case.

Care proceedings concerning ten children were heard over seven days, with oral evidence concluding on 26 September 2014. Four children remained living with their parents under interim supervision orders.

Judgment was handed down on 17 March 2015, nearly six months after the evidence concluded. The Bournemouth Family Court made final care orders and placement orders for the younger children. The father appealed, principally arguing that the judge had failed to consider the intervening period of parental care and should have obtained updated welfare evidence.

The central questions were whether the statutory timetable had been observed and whether the delay made further evidence necessary before the welfare decisions were made.

1. Appeal allowed in relation to the four children who had remained in the parents’ care. Their final orders were set aside and the proceedings were remitted to HHJ Meston QC for re-appraisal on updated evidence. The appeals concerning L and S were unsuccessful.
2. Under Children Act 1989, s 32(1), read with Family Procedure Rules 2010, rr 12.22 and 12.26A–C, the court must manage the proceedings so that the application is disposed of within 26 weeks. That includes managing the court’s own time for preparing and handing down a reserved judgment.
3. An extension must be expressly determined and justified as necessary to resolve the proceedings justly, with regard to its impact on the child’s welfare. The court cannot grant more than eight weeks at one time. An open-ended extension until judgment is outside the statutory scheme. The parties must monitor compliance and draw delay to the court’s attention under r 12.24.
4. The effect of delay on the welfare determination is fact-sensitive. Where children have remained with their parents and the parents’ ability to provide good enough care remains a live issue, the judge must consider whether the original evidence has become stale and whether short updating evidence is required. In this case the judge did not bring the intervening period of parental care or the updating material into the welfare evaluation.
5. The requirement is not automatic in every case. Delay may have little relevance where the issues concern long-term, apparently intractable and unchanging matters. The arguments based on a possible breach of Article 6 added nothing to the central issue. The case was remitted because the welfare assessment concerning the four children at home had been compromised by the failure to obtain and consider appropriate updating evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2015] EWCA Civ 606, the appeal was allowed in relation to the four children who remained at home. Their final orders were set aside and the case was remitted to HHJ Meston QC for consideration of updated evidence. The challenges concerning L and S were rejected.
• Bournemouth Family Court: HHJ Meston QC made final care orders and placement orders on 17 March 2015 after care proceedings concerning ten children.