Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 25, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Judgment Approved
Lord Justice McFarlane :
The present appeal, essentially, raises two related questions. Firstly, what is the extent of a judge’s responsibility to provide reasons in support of orders made at the conclusion of public law children proceedings? Secondly, where there has been a failure to give reasons, but there can be no challenge on appeal to the substantive orders made, what steps, if any, should the appellate court take to redress the lack of adequate reasoning?
The proceedings, which were heard by His Honour Judge Wilding sitting in the Watford Family Court, concerned seven of the eight children born to their mother and her previous partner, who is the father of the elder four, and her current partner, who is the father of the younger four. The case, which was based on allegations of neglect and emotional harm, arose from a history of extensive local authority involvement with the family stretching back to 2000 around the time of the birth of the second child. Despite that history, and to the credit of the mother, the children’s fathers, and the Social Services, the arrangements for the care of the children had been maintained within the family, albeit with extensive support, until the instigation of the present care proceedings in 2016. Indeed, the seven children remained in the care of the mother and her partner until the making of the final order in January 2017.
By the conclusion of the final hearing there was agreement by all parties as to the factual basis upon which the CA 1989 s.31 threshold criteria were satisfied. Consequently, the sole issue for the judge was to determine the best outcome for the future care of the seven children who ranged in age from 16 years down to 9 months. Before the court, the parents accepted that alternative care arrangements should be made for the oldest three children. The primary area of dispute, therefore, related to the four youngest children, a girl, S, who is now aged 7 years, and three boys, now aged, respectively, 4, 3 and 15 months, who are all the children of the mother and her current partner (‘the father’). The parents’ case was that all four of these children should be returned to their care. The local authority case, which was supported by the children’s guardian, was that all four children should be subject to a care order together with an order authorising the local authority to place them for adoption. It was accepted by the local authority that finding an adoptive home for all
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal judgment, authored by Lord Justice McFarlane with concurrences from Lord Justice Lewison and the President of the Family Division, addresses an appeal focused solely on the adequacy of reasons given by HHJ Wilding in care proceedings concerning seven of eight siblings. The Watford Family Court accepted the Children Act 1989 s.31 threshold, ruled out rehabilitation to the parents, and made care and placement for adoption orders for the four youngest children (including S aged 7). On appeal, Miss Elizabeth Isaacs QC argued that the judge failed to provide a Re BS analysis, to consider long-term fostering (particularly for S), and to justify closed adoption and limited contact. While acknowledging the judgment’s reasoning deficit, the Court held that, once rehabilitation was rightly excluded, adoption was the only tenable plan for the three younger children and a realistic plan for S. The omissions regarding long-term fostering and direct contact did not amount to material irregularity. The appeal was dismissed, with guidance on best practice for issue identification and judicial reasoning.