R, Re
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a case involving the placement and welfare of two children, E (12) and N (6), His Honour Judge Bromilow's decisions were upheld upon appeal. These decisions included refusing an additional psychological report, denying the discharge of care orders, separating the children, and denying F contact with E. The court emphasized judges' discretion in case management, the necessity to demonstrate parental capability, the justifiability of sibling separation when in the best interests of children, and ensuring contact orders are aligned with the child's well-being.
Judgment
Lady Justice Black :
On 31 October 2013, His Honour Judge Bromilow made orders in relation to two children, a girl (E) who is 12, and a boy (N) who is 6. E’s father (F) seeks to appeal against those orders. Although N is not biologically his child, he has always treated him as his own and is as committed to bringing up N as he is to bringing up E. He had applied for the discharge of care orders that had been made earlier in relation to both children; Judge Bromilow dismissed that application and granted the placement order that the local authority (LA) sought in relation to N. He declined to make any order in relation to contact between F and the children. F seeks to appeal against these decisions.
In preparation for the hearing, Judge Bromilow had been asked to order an addendum report from a psychologist, Dr Franzen, who had provided a full report earlier in the proceedings. On 26 September 2013, he declined to do so, on the basis that it was not necessary in order to determine the applications that were before him. F also seeks to appeal against that decision.
The courts have been involved with E and N for a considerable period. I will not set out here the detail of the history but a short outline is necessary in order to establish the context of this appeal.
The history up to May 2012
LA’s concerns about the family go back many years. The children’s mother (M) had many disadvantages. Looking after the children proved to be challenging for their mother (M). As she plays no part in this part of the proceedings in relation to them, I need not go into the details of her problems and I can turn my focus elsewhere.
The problems were not confined to M. The relationship between the parents was a volatile one. The final threshold document, which the parents accepted, said that there were incidents of domestic violence between them giving rise to “mutual injury”. It also said that they had failed to act upon advice from educational and health care professionals with respect to a number of ongoing health problems. It referred to neglect of E and to home conditions being poor, with there being numerous examples of the parents failing to engage sufficiently with LA and work collaboratively with it. The situation was summarised in the document as follows:
“As such, the children have been exposed to or are at risk of being exposed to chronic neglect, physical and emotional harm.”
These general statements in the threshold document do not convey the p