R (A Child : Care Order)

Hair-strand testing is evidence within the wider evidential picture, not ordinarily determinative of drug use or abstinence. Expert results must be interpreted with the broader social-work, medical and reliability evidence, and the court must evaluate that evidence itself. Expert evidence in children proceedings is subject to the mandatory requirements of the applicable practice direction.

Where adoption is proposed, the court must undertake a global, holistic evaluation of all realistic welfare options. The parent-child relationship may be severed only where adoption is required by the child’s welfare and no practical alternative, including appropriate support and assistance, will meet the child’s needs within a timescale compatible with those needs.

The local authority sought a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in respect of a young child whose mother had a serious history of drug misuse. The mother accepted that the threshold criteria under section 31(2) were met.

An earlier care and placement order had been made in the County Court, but the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for rehearing. The rehearing concerned conflicting interpretations of hair-strand testing, the mother’s credibility and drug use, and the child’s welfare, including whether he should return to his mother or be placed for adoption.

1. Expert evidence. Hair-strand testing was not determinative. The experts agreed that it should be treated as one part of the evidential picture and considered alongside the social-work evidence, medical evidence and the reliability of the donor’s account. The court was required to evaluate the evidence as a whole.
2. The Practice Direction governing expert evidence in family proceedings was mandatory, subject to purposive application to the circumstances of the case. Experts had to provide advice conforming to professional best practice, distinguish hypothesis from accepted opinion, and identify the range and limitations of expert opinion. The requirements applied even where laboratory results appeared factual, because such results were ordinarily interpreted in expert evidence.
3. The court preferred the interpretative evidence of Mr Ramsey and Ms John to that of Professor Kintz. It found that the broader evidence established ingestion of drugs and that the mother’s relationship with DS was closely connected with her drug use. The negative urine tests did not displace the hair evidence but formed part of the wider assessment. No adverse inference was drawn from the diluted urine sample.
4. Welfare and adoption. The court applied the requirement for a global, holistic and multi-faceted evaluation of all realistic options, weighing the positives and negatives of each option side by side. The relationship between parent and child should be severed only where nothing else would do, and the court had to consider the assistance and support available from public authorities or others.
5. The mother could not meet R’s needs within a timescale compatible with them. Given the child’s age, attachment to his foster carer, the mother’s persistent lack of openness and the risks associated with her relationship with DS, there was no practical alternative to adoption. A care order and placement order were therefore made.

The judgment records that an earlier County Court judgment making a care order and placement order was appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for rehearing. The permission and appeal decisions are referred to as [2016] EWCA Civ 470, but that decision is not a judgment in the present litigation for citation-treatment purposes.