P (A Child)

In care and placement proceedings, a judge need not recite every welfare-checklist factor or use a formal balance sheet. The judgment must, however, show a reasoned and proportionate comparison of the benefits and detriments of each realistic option, especially parental care and adoption. A parent should not be ruled out linearly before adoption is considered unless the case is one of the rare exceptions. Dishonesty does not itself establish significant harm; the evidence must connect it to a risk of future harm and inability to protect the child. Adoption is permissible only where exceptional welfare requirements mean that nothing else will do. On appeal, defective reasoning does not necessarily require a rehearing if the evidence supports the orders and the appellate court can safely substitute its own evaluation.

P was an infant girl subject to care and placement proceedings. On 13 March 2015, His Honour Judge Ansell made care and placement orders after a contested hearing. The mother appealed, challenging the use of material from earlier proceedings, the application of the welfare checklists, findings concerning dishonesty and a separate life, and the absence of a comparative analysis of parental care and adoption. The first-instance judgment gave little analysis of adoption or the reasons for dispensing with consent. The local authority served a Respondent’s Notice inviting the Court of Appeal to uphold the orders on alternative grounds. The central issue was whether the defects made the orders wrong or whether they could be sustained or substituted on the evidence.

Appellate review

The Court, in a judgment to which all three judges contributed, dismissed the appeal. The appellate task was to decide whether the first-instance conclusion was wrong and, if necessary, whether the outcome could be upheld for other reasons apparent from the evidence or whether the case required remission. The distinction between appellate and first-instance functions in public-law proceedings was noted by reference to Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33. The Court deferred to the judge’s assessment of witnesses, particularly the mother, applying the usual restraint described in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27 and Re A (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 1254.

Evidence and threshold

The absence of a judgment or formal findings in the earlier proceedings made it unsafe to resolve challenged historical facts merely from reports unless their authors were available for questioning. The local authority retained the burden of proving its factual case. Nevertheless, the April 2013 Threshold Statement could reasonably provide a baseline and context because relevant witnesses gave evidence and the mother had an opportunity to comment on the material. The judge had also identified relevant welfare factors without needing to recite the checklist mechanically. Dishonesty did not itself establish significant harm. A causal link was required between the proven dishonesty and the asserted future risk. The judge had made that link by connecting the mother’s lies, absences, risky relationships, lack of stimulation and inability to prioritise P’s needs.

Holistic evaluation and outcome

The first-instance judgment was materially deficient because it did not adequately analyse adoption, compare it with parental care or undertake a proportionality evaluation. A holistic approach was an ordinary welfare balancing exercise; no formal balance-sheet format was required, but the benefits and detriments of each realistic option had to be evaluated against the others. The mother was a realistic option and should not have been ruled out linearly before adoption was considered, since this was not one of the rare cases permitting that approach. The Court nevertheless had sufficient accepted evidence to undertake the missing evaluation itself. Having considered P’s family relationships, the lifelong impact of adoption and the risks identified, it concluded that adoption was the only realistic outcome meeting P’s long-term needs. The mother’s consent could therefore be dispensed with. Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the appeal was dismissed. The Court substituted its own conclusion that adoption was the only realistic option.
• Central Family Court: His Honour Judge Ansell made care and placement orders on 13 March 2015 after a contested hearing.