S-L (Children : Adjournment)

An adjournment of a final decision in children proceedings is a positive and purposeful decision. The court must weigh the need for further information against the presumptive prejudice caused by delay, particularly for babies and young children.

Public law proceedings must be concluded within the statutory timetable unless an extension is necessary for justice. A case management decision may be briefly reasoned, but it must still explain the evaluation of the evidence, the reasons for departing from professional advice and why delay is justified.

A local authority applied for care and placement orders concerning two young children. Following an intensive residential parenting assessment and a contested final hearing, the recorder declined to make final orders and directed a further 12-week assessment, making interim care orders in the meantime.

The local authority appealed, arguing that the adjournment was plainly wrong and that the recorder’s short judgment failed to provide adequate reasons. The parents defended the decision, while the children’s Guardian supported the appeal. The central issue was whether further assessment and the resulting delay were justified.

1. Appeal allowed. Peter Jackson LJ held, with Green LJ and Floyd LJ agreeing, that the decision to adjourn for further assessment could not stand. The direction was set aside and the applications were remitted to a different judge for an expedited final hearing.
2. An adjournment of a final decision in children proceedings may be justified where necessary information is genuinely required. It is not merely a pause in the proceedings. It is a positive and purposeful choice requiring the court to weigh the advantages of obtaining information against the presumptive prejudice caused to the child by delay. The court must remain particularly alert to the significance of time for babies and young children.
3. The statutory timetable was engaged for both children. Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 embodies the presumptive prejudice caused by delay. Section 32(1)(a) requires public law proceedings to be timetabled for disposal without delay and in any event within 26 weeks. Under section 32(5), an extension is permitted only where necessary to enable the proceedings to be resolved justly. The recorder was required to explain why that necessity existed.
4. A case management decision may require less detailed reasoning than a final welfare decision, but it must still be reasoned. The judgment did not analyse the evidence or issues, assess the extensive and undisputed family history, or explain the departure from strong professional evidence and the earlier decision that no further assessment was required.
5. The appeal standard was satisfied because the decision was wrong and involved a serious procedural irregularity. The parents had already undergone an intensive assessment concerning one child, there was no evidential gap requiring the proposed assessment, and delay was a pressing adverse consideration. The remitted judge was left to determine whether care or placement orders should ultimately be made.

1. Family Court at Liverpool. In May 2019, the recorder declined to make final care and placement orders, directed a further 12-week assessment and made interim care orders.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal was allowed. The direction for further assessment was set aside and the matter was remitted for an expedited final hearing. [2019] EWCA Civ 1571