West Northamptonshire Council v The Mother (Psychological Assessments)

Expert psychological evidence in care proceedings may be permitted only where it is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings. Necessity means something approaching the imperative, rather than evidence that would merely be useful, reasonable or desirable.

Common difficulties in understanding or retaining information should ordinarily be addressed through careful communication, simple language, avoidance of jargon and checks that the parent understands. A cognitive assessment relevant to the court process is appropriate only where those measures, including the principles in the Advocates Gateway, are plainly insufficient. Applications require proper evidence explaining why the case goes beyond the ordinary difficulties experienced by many parents.

In care proceedings concerning a young child, the mother applied under Family Procedure Rules Part 25 for a psychologist to undertake a cognitive assessment. The proposed assessment was said to assist with her intellectual functioning, participation in hearings and meetings, and future professional assessments.

The application was listed for determination after the mother sought to withdraw it shortly before the hearing. The local authority and Children’s Guardian identified no evidence of cognitive impairment or significant communication difficulty. The central issue was whether expert evidence was necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings.

1. The application for a psychological or cognitive assessment was refused. It did not come close to satisfying the necessity test and should not have been made on the evidence.
2. Under Family Procedure Rules Part 25.43, expert evidence may be permitted only where it is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings. Necessity has the ordinary meaning of an imperative requirement. It lies between the indispensable and the merely useful, reasonable or desirable. This approach was drawn from Re HL (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655, with the formulation having been considered in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535.
3. In applications for cognitive assessments, the evidence must explain why the case involves difficulties beyond those commonly faced by parents in care proceedings and why those needs cannot be managed through appropriate communication by professionals. Relevant matters may often have emerged through schooling, earlier local-authority involvement or pre-proceedings work.
4. Professionals, including lawyers and judges, should use simple language, avoid jargon, explain matters appropriately and check understanding. The Advocates Gateway provides relevant guidance. An assessment relevant to the court process should be ordered only where that approach is plainly insufficient. The same principle had been applied in West Northamptonshire Council v KA (Intermediaries) [2024] EWHC 79, at [46].
5. A report aimed at identifying future psychological support or improving ordinary social-work assessment is not necessary to resolve the proceedings. Applications made as a precautionary or “belt and braces” measure risk wasting court, local-authority and Cafcass resources.