V-Z (Children), Re

In care and placement proceedings, a court cannot rule out a relative as a potential carer unless the available assessment evidence provides a sufficient and reliable foundation for doing so. Where an assessment by foreign authorities lacks material information about the children’s needs, the alleged risks, or practical care arrangements, the requesting authority must take reasonable steps to provide the information, answer queries and pursue further enquiries before relying on the assessment adversely.

Delay remains relevant to welfare, but it must be balanced against the value of a properly investigated family placement and the likely delay and uncertainty in the alternative permanence plan. Where an appeal succeeds on a material welfare option and circumstances have moved on, the welfare decisions should ordinarily be reheard afresh.

The local authority obtained care orders for four siblings and placement orders for the two youngest children. Its plan was to separate the children, placing the older two in long-term foster care in England and the younger two for adoption.

The mother appealed. A principal alternative was care by the maternal grandmother in Slovakia. Slovak authorities had produced positive assessments, but the local authority’s assessment was negative and further enquiries were not completed. The Slovak assessors had not been given key information about the children’s behavioural needs or the asserted risk posed by the father, and their request for clarification of that risk was not answered.

The central issue was whether the judge could reject the grandmother as a carer, and make final welfare orders, on that incomplete evidential basis.

1. Appeal allowed. The care and placement orders were set aside and the proceedings were remitted for a fresh welfare hearing before a different judge.

2. The judge’s rejection of the grandmother as a carer could not stand. The evidence did not provide a sufficient foundation for concluding that she could not care for any of the children. The local authority’s viability assessment was defective. It criticised her understanding of the children’s behavioural problems, their relationship with her, alternative care during her limited working hours, and risk, without ensuring that she had been given the relevant information or that the matters had been properly investigated.

3. The Slovak assessment was important because of those deficiencies. Yet the Slovak authorities were not given the sibling assessment or a clear account of the alleged risks, their express request for clarification of risk was unanswered, and no adequate further assessment or enquiry was pursued. It was unfair to treat further investigation as necessarily causing significant delay when no meaningful attempt had been made to obtain the outstanding information.

4. Delay had to be evaluated on both sides of the welfare balance. The judge lacked adequate evidence to compare delay in investigating the grandmother with the likely delay, availability and stability of the proposed adoptive placements. The potential benefits of placement within the family and preservation of cultural links also required consideration.

5. Because time had passed and family circumstances might have changed, the welfare decisions concerning parental care as well as care by the grandmother had to be reconsidered. The new judge would determine the scope of the fresh hearing, assess the current evidence of risk, separation, the mother’s health and the children’s behaviour, and make an independent welfare decision. Agreed findings of fact were to be carried forward.

The court additionally stressed that authorities seeking assistance abroad should state the questions clearly, supply all necessary material, document what has been sent, answer queries, follow up outstanding matters and consider appropriate direct communication after consulting the relevant Central Authority.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the mother’s appeal, set aside the care and placement orders, and remitted the proceedings for a fresh welfare hearing before a different judge: [2016] EWCA Civ 475.
• Stafford District Registry: His Honour Judge Perry made care orders for all four children and placement orders for the two youngest children on 12 February 2016.