M (A Child: Long-Term Foster Care)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
- LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
- LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a decision by Mr Recorder Harvey in proceedings concerning a young girl, L. The Recorder granted a care order but refused a placement order, leading to an appeal by the local authority. Issues raised included the alleged inconsistency of the Recorder's judgments, his handling of the mother's need for therapy, and his evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of adoption versus fostering. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for rehearing before a different judge. The legal principles emphasized the necessity of considering all options, the impact of delay, and clear judicial reasoning.
Judgment
LADY JUSTICE BLACK :
This is an appeal against a decision of Mr Recorder Harvey in proceedings relating to young girl, L, who was born in December 2010 and is now 3 ¾ years old.
On 16 June 2014, the Recorder granted a care order in relation to L in favour of the local authority (LA) but refused LA’s application for a placement order. There has been no appeal against the care order but LA appeal against the refusal of a placement order. L’s guardian supports the appeal. M opposes it.
F has played no part in the appeal proceedings. At the commencement of the appeal hearing, we established that he had been served with the notice of appeal through his solicitors in August. Subsequently, they appear to have received no further instructions from F and they requested that LA send any further correspondence directly to him, although it was not entirely clear whether they formally came off the record. We were told that F was aware of the date of the appeal hearing and that that information was reinforced when he was visited by a social worker on the Monday preceding the appeal hearing. He is said to have responded by making an appointment to see his solicitors but then failed to attend it. This erratic engagement with the process is consistent with his behaviour during the hearing before the Recorder.
The Recorder gave his main reasons for his decision in his judgment of 16 June 2014 (“the first judgment”). He supplemented that with an addendum dated 6 July 2014 (“the second judgment”). He also gave a short further judgment on 7 July 2014 when he refused LA’s application for permission to appeal (“the permission judgment”). An important component in LA’s grounds of appeal is their assertion that the judgments are inconsistent with each other. They also argue that the Recorder went wrong in his evaluation of the substance of the case, in particular in his approach to the therapy that M needs before she could care for L, in respect of the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and fostering, and in his conclusions about the importance of L continuing to have contact with M and F.
As presented on paper, LA’s case was that if the appeal were to be allowed, this court should make the placement order that the Recorder refused. This was not abandoned in oral argument but as the hearing before us progressed, LA acknowledged that alternatively the case might have to be remitted for hearing before a different judge.
Background
From birth until September 20