R (A Child)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR JAMES MUNBY, PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the appeal of a mother against the decision of the Family Court to place her daughter ES for adoption due to domestic violence and alcohol abuse concerns. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the initial decision. Key legal principles regarding the necessity of adoption were reaffirmed.
Judgment
Lady Justice Black:
This appeal is from orders made on 29 August 2013 by HHJ Penna in relation to four children whose ages range from 12 years old down to 4 years old. Judge Penna made care orders in relation to all four children and placement orders in relation to the two youngest children. The appeal is brought by the children’s mother (M) with permission from Lewison LJ.
In the court below, the parties were the local authority (LA), M, Mr H who is the father of the oldest two children, Mr J who is the father of the youngest two children and the children’s guardian (the guardian). Mr J had disappeared from the scene and did not appear in person or through a legal representative. Mr H was on a religious retreat so did not attend himself but he was represented, at least at the start of the hearing before Judge Penna. The other parties were all represented.
Before us, LA and the guardian were again represented. M was in person; we do not know why she did not have legal representation. Neither of the fathers attended. I do not think that Mr J has been traced. Mr H’s former solicitors were contacted by the Civil Appeals Office and confirmed that they had written to his last known address informing him of the date of the appeal hearing.
M originally put forward two grounds of appeal but Lewison LJ only permitted her to rely upon one. In the order that he made, the ground is said to be “that the judgment is inadequately reasoned”. The judgment that Lewison LJ gave when granting permission explained rather more fully what the Lord Justice considered required attention from this court. The whole of his short judgment is instructive but it may be sufficient to repeat §4 here:
“The risk …. that the judge found was clearly tied to Mr J and his inappropriate sexual behaviour. The material submitted by the local authority, which I have read and which is confirmed by the mother’s grounds of appeal, shows that the mother and Mr J are now divorced, no longer living together and the mother has no intention of resuming any relationship with Mr J. In those circumstances, I have a considerable concern that the judge did not make any clear findings about whether the risk which he identified continued to exist after the disappearance of Mr J from the life of the mother and her children. I have a concern also that the judge did not expressly deal with less draconian outcomes than the orders which she eventually made.”
Lewison LJ also referred to the decision of