L & Ors (Children : care proceedings)

In care proceedings, very late challenges to negative viability assessments, or late identification of family members as potential carers, should be permitted only where there is an exceptionally good reason for the delay and the assessment can be completed without adversely affecting the timetable for determining the children’s future. The court must give primary weight to the welfare of the children and should avoid unwarranted delay, particularly where young children have already spent a substantial period in foster care. A further assessment may be refused where there is no identified basis for challenging the existing assessment and the proposed assessment would imperil the proceedings timetable.

The proceedings concerned four young children who had lived in foster care since interim care orders were made. The parents had identified various maternal and paternal relatives as possible alternative carers. Viability assessments of those relatives were negative, and no timely challenge had been made.

At a later hearing, the parents sought to raise challenges to the assessments and to identify the paternal grandfather, who was unaware that he had been put forward and lived in Lithuania. The children’s Guardian supported further independent assessments. The court determined whether those assessments should proceed without causing further delay to the final determination of the children’s future.

1. Late family placements. Very late challenges to viability assessments, and very late identification of family members, would be countenanced only where there was an exceptionally good reason for the delay and the assessment would not adversely affect the timetable for determining the children’s future.
2. Application to the facts. No written challenge had been provided, no basis for disputing the negative assessments had been identified, and the challenges arose despite the parents having competent legal representation throughout. The proposed paternal grandfather was unaware that he had been put forward, lived separately in Lithuania, worked full-time, lived alone and had suffered a heart attack. There was no realistic prospect of a positive assessment of him as carer for four children aged between one and seven.
3. Welfare and delay. The court was required to determine the children’s future as soon as possible. They had already spent seven months in foster care, and further assessments would either serve no useful purpose or seriously imperil the timetable. The Guardian’s contrary view was rejected because it lacked a timetable for the proposed assessments and did not give proper weight to the adverse consequences of further unwarranted delay.
4. Order. The application for assessment of the paternal grandfather was refused. The local authority could proceed on the basis of the negative viability assessments already filed. The proceedings were reallocated to Mr Justice Keehan, with the issues to be considered at a promptly listed interim resolution hearing.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.