E (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders)

In care and adoption proceedings, a psychological assessment may be necessary where a parent’s psychological profile may affect parenting and the support required, and the existing evidence cannot fairly determine those matters. Delay beyond the statutory timetable is important but is not decisive where essential evidence is missing and the decision may permanently sever family ties. The court must identify the support needed, determine what the local authority can and should provide under Article 8 and the Children Act 1989, and assess whether the child’s welfare needs can then be met. Adoption remains a last resort. Here, the failure to obtain the assessment prevented a proper evaluation of support and of the realistic alternatives to adoption.

A mother appealed against care and placement orders made for her young son. The threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 had been agreed. At the final hearing, the Family Court at Worcester refused an adjournment for a psychological assessment, concluded that the mother could not provide good enough care, and approved adoption. A previous application under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules had also been refused. The appeal challenged the treatment of the evidential gap, the analysis of support available to the mother, and the proportionality of adoption. The central issue was whether the child’s future could fairly be determined without specialist evidence about the mother’s psychological profile and the support required for her to care safely for him.

1. Appeal allowed. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 succeeded. The care and placement orders were set aside and the applications were remitted for rehearing before another judge. Ground 1, concerning the treatment of the social worker’s evidence, was not determined.
2. The positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR and section 17 of the Children Act 1989 apply whenever the court considers removing a child from birth parents, and are especially important where adoption is proposed. The court must identify the support needed, determine what the local authority can and should provide, and decide whether the child’s welfare needs can be met with that support. The realistic options must be evaluated globally, holistically and in sufficient detail. Adoption requires exceptional circumstances and must be necessary and proportionate.
3. Section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules restrict expert evidence to evidence necessary to resolve proceedings justly. That control does not justify refusing an assessment which is required to fill an evidential gap. The application here rested on substantial evidence of trauma, self-harm, emotionally unstable personality disorder, complex psychological needs and possible autism. The mother’s stable mental health and her own disagreement that psychological needs affected parenting did not remove the need for specialist assessment.
4. The existing assessments could not identify how the mother’s psychological profile affected her parenting or the nature and level of support required. The social worker expressly lacked the professional expertise to assess those matters. Without the report, the recorder could not fairly determine whether support might make care good enough or conduct the necessary comparison of the realistic care options.
5. Delay was relevant, including the delay likely to result from exceeding 26 weeks, but it was not decisive. In light of the lifelong consequences of adoption, the Court of Appeal itself directed that a psychologist be instructed and invited directions for the report. Nothing in the judgment expressed a view on the ultimate welfare outcome.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2023] EWCA Civ 721, the appeal was allowed on grounds 2, 3 and 4. The care and placement orders were set aside, the proceedings were remitted, and a psychological assessment was directed.
2. Family Court at Worcester — Recorder Rowbotham made care and placement orders after refusing an adjournment for psychological assessment.
3. Family Court at Worcester — HH Judge Bugeja had previously dismissed the mother’s application under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules for expert psychological evidence.