![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> M (A Child), In the Matter Of [2024] EWCA Civ 1000 (29 August 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1000.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Civ 1000 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
CIVIL
DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT CANTERBURY
His Honour Judge Scarratt
ME22C50219
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE BEAN
and
LADY JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE
____________________
In the matter of M (A CHILD) |
____________________
Mr Jeremy Hall (instructed by Stilwell & Singleton) for the First Respondent
Ms Polly Thompson (instructed by Kingsfords) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates : 9 August 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Macur LJ :
Introduction
'AND UPON the Court giving an ex-tempore Judgment in which it refused to endorse the Local Authority's care plan of adoption and found that it was not in [M's] best interests to be placed with her mother in the community. Accordingly, the Court adjourned this matter and invited the Local Authority to change its care plan to one of long-term foster care with ongoing contact between [M] and her mother, indicating that it would intend to make a care order at the next hearing on such basis.'
The judge directed the LA to file an updated care plan by 22 May 2024 to be considered at a hearing on 3 June 2024.
"the Local Authority having provided an updated care plan but the Court and other parties expressing concern about the contents of this, stating that this is an inchoate care plan, to include misrepresentation of the views of the Children's Guardian. Accordingly, the Court did not feel in a position to endorse this final care plan at today's hearing."
The LA were directed to file a further final care plan by 17 June 2024 to be considered at a hearing on 9 July 2024. The LA's intended application for permission to appeal was adjourned to 11 October 2024.
"to hear that the current foster carer has indicated that she can only keep [M] in her care for about 5 years, stating that this was not the impression she gave in evidence, the Court stating its decision might have been different in this extremely finely balanced case had it been aware of this. The Court indicated that a postscript will be added to the Judgment in relation to this issue, noting that the Local Authority has lodged an application to appeal the decision of the Court."
"I would want the C of A to know – following yesterday's hearing when I heard for the first time (as did the Guardian) – that the foster carer has decided that she can in fact only care for the child for a maximum of 5 years, that my decision might have been different in this "extremely finely balanced" case (as described by the Guardian). In my judgment it is important for the C of A to know of this most recent development.'
Background
The ex-tempore judgment given on 15 May 2024.
Grounds of Appeal
a. The judge failed to consider the mother's inability to understand, identify, and avoid risk;
b. Consequently, the judge erroneously prioritised contact between the mother and M and failed to weigh other factors in an overall assessment of her best interests throughout her life: see Adoption and Children Act 2002 section 1(2);
c. The judge failed to consider the impact of M spending 14 years in long term foster care as opposed to the benefits provided by adoption and "the enduring sense of belonging to a family";
d. The judge's analysis was influenced by a preconceived and pessimistic personal view of the prospect of an open adoptive placement being identified, and thereafter failed to consider the powers available to the Family Court on the making of an adoption order;
e. The judge did not have any or any adequate regard to the potential disruption in M's current foster placement;
f. The judge speculated that M, if adopted, would be traumatised if the mother had further children and cared for them in the community.
"The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option. The linear approach … is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare."
Discussion
"there are cases where the deficiencies in the judge's reasoning are on a "scale which cannot fairly be remedied by a request for clarification As King LJ said in In re I (at para 41): "It is neither necessary nor appropriate for this court to seek to identify any bright line or to provide guidelines as to the limits of the appropriate nature or extent of clarification which may properly be sought in either children or financial remedy cases." But where the omissions are on a scale that makes it impossible to discern the basis for the judge's decision, or where, in addition to omissions, the analysis in the judgment is perceived as being deficient in other respects, it will not be appropriate to seek clarification but instead to apply for permission to appeal."
Bean LJ:
Andrews LJ: