![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> West Northamptonshire Council v The Mother (Psychological Assessments) [2024] EWHC 395 (Fam) (23 February 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/395.html Cite as: [2024] 4 WLR 31, [2024] EWHC 395 (Fam), [2024] WLR(D) 114 |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[View ICLR summary: [2024] WLR(D) 114]
[Buy ICLR report: [2024] 4 WLR 31]
[Help]
family
must be strictly preserved. All persons, including
representatives
of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court. 2024] EWHC 395 ( Fam) | ||
FAMILY
DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
2024 |
B e f o r e :
____________________
WEST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| THE MOTHER | First Respondent | |
| and | ||
| (a child, through his Children's Guardian) | Second Respondent |
____________________
Mr Simon Leach (instructed by
Family
Law Group) for the First
Respondent
Mr James Walthall (instructed by Jackson
West)
for the Second
Respondent
Ms Francesca Lambert-Amaning (instructed by HLA
Family
Law) for the Father
Hearing dates: 9 February
2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
remotely
at 10.30am on 23 February
2024
by circulation to the parties or their
representatives
by e-mail and by
release
to the National Archives.Mrs Justice Lieven DBE :
Family
Court should take.
West
Northamptonshire
Council
acting through
Northamptonshire
Children's Trust and they were
represented
by Melanie Benn, the Mother was
represented
by Simon Leach, the Children's Guardian was
represented
by James Walthall, and the Father was
represented
by Francesca Lambert-Amaning.
received
an email from the Mother's solicitor, Mr Leach, stating that he was seeking to withdraw the Part 25 application for a psychological assessment. Given the lateness of this application I decided not to allow the application to be withdrawn, but rather consider the matter and give a
reasoned
decision. It is not acceptable for court time and public funds to be wasted by decisions to withdraw applications being made so late. I also note that every skeleton argument/position statement was submitted long after the Case Management Order dated 23 January
2024
had ordered. The late production of skeletons arguments/position statements places an undue burden on judges and causes quite unnecessary delays. These comments do not
relate
to the Father's team, who was not a party at the
relevant
time.
Y,
was born in late December 2023, somewhat prematurely and
remained
in hospital for three weeks after his birth. The LA applied for an Interim Care Order ("ICO") before he was due to leave hospital. The interim Threshold alleges that Mother failed to engage with antenatal services, including mental health services, and that there was a risk of harm from her association with the Father, who had a history of offences.
reference
to her having a Special Educational Needs Statement or having attended anything other than a mainstream school.
removal
hearing the LA changed its plan to one of the Mother and child being placed in a mother and baby foster placement. There was a slight delay in finding a placement and there was a further hearing on 23 January
2024.
At that hearing the placement was agreed and they have
remained
in that placement since that date. I am very pleased to say that the
reports
so far have been very positive of the Mother.
2024
the Mother's solicitors made an application under
Family
Procedure Rules ("FPR") Part 25 for:
"1. The Court isrequested
to commission the instruction of a psychologist to undertake a cognitive assessment of the Mother to assist both the Local Authority and the court in ascertaining:
a) How any assessments should be conducted of her;
b) Her level of intellectual functioning to assist professionals in understanding how sheretains
information, learns parenting skills and acts on advice;
c) What support she is likely torequire
in any court hearings and meetings with professionals.
2. Instructing Solicitors on behalf of [the Mother] is of the understanding that the information identified within a cognitive functioning assessment would identifyrecommendations
which the court and professionals must utilise to ensure that [the Mother] is fairly
represented
within proceedings.
3. A cognitive assessment will provide valuable insight to partiesregarding
how hearings or cross examination should be conducted in
respect
of [the Mother] and whether she will
require
any assistance within proceedings moving forward. If a cognitive assessment was not completed, it is believed that [the Mother's] Article Six Rights to a fair trial will not be upheld.
4. Furthermore, the Local Authority is likely to carry out further assessments during the course of proceedings. The cognitive assessment will be informative inrespect
of [the Mother's] cognitive needs in order for appropriate measures to be put in place. This would allow [the Mother] to engage meaningfully and entirely with all meetings, assessments and court hearings."
required
such an assessment. This is important, both because, as I explain below, the test is one of "necessity" and there was no evidence or submissions that supported such a test; and because the late withdrawal of the application is an indication that it should never have been made.
"The Mother is deemed vulnerable due to her age, her past experiences and mental health issues. The mother has indicated that she struggles with engaging within professional meetings andretaining
information."
Family
Judge for Northampton, who listed it before me as the Presiding
Family
Judge for the Midlands.
2024
as a "belt and braces" approach at a point when he (the solicitor for the Mother) had not met the Mother, but counsel at the earlier hearing had. There may have been some discussion at that stage of the LA using the ParentAssess framework when assessing the Mother. Mr Leach said that once he had spoken to the Mother, the evening before the hearing before me, in the light of her excellent progress at the foster placement and his own conversation with her, he had decided to withdraw the application.
resisted
the application, pointing out that in the LA's interactions with the Mother they had not noted any issues with her cognitive functioning, nor had this been pointed out by any of the health or other professionals working with the Mother. Ms Benn also
referred
to the fact that the LA would take care to not use professional jargon in meetings with the Mother and take steps to check that she understood and
retained
information she was given.
2024.
In the light of the application for a cognitive assessment the Guardian spent about an hour with the Mother and considered her cognitive functioning. The Guardian's view is neatly summarised in paragraph 9 of her Skeleton Argument:
"During her meeting, the Guardian was content that the Mother understood their discussions and was able to explain her understanding of the written agreement which was agreed on 23rd January2024.
The only observation the Guardian made was that she anticipates that people working with the Mother may need to spend more time with her and to explain things in simple language."
referred
to Part 25 and to a speech by the President of the
Family
Division for the need to be alert to the parents in care proceedings with limited intellectual functioning. However, she then said she was "neutral" on whether the Part 25 application should be granted.
remained
neutral on the application. Guardians, and the Children's solicitors, play an important role in care proceedings in ensuring that the interests of the child are met by minimising delay and maximising the efficient use of
resources,
in particular by assisting the Court to "Make Cases Smaller", see the President of the
Family
Division's The Road Ahead. If it is clear to the Guardian and the Child's solicitor that an application should be
refused,
then they should make that clear to the Court.
The Law and Guidance
"The court may give permission as mentioned in paragraph (2) only if the court is of the opinion that the expert evidence is necessary to assist the court toresolve
the proceedings."
report
is "necessary" for the
resolution
of the proceedings.
Re
HL (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655, where the Court said:
"The short answer is that 'necessary' means necessary. It is, after all, an ordinary English word. It is afamiliar
expression nowadays in
family
law, not least because of the central role it plays, for example, in Article 8 of the European Convention and the wider Strasbourg jurisprudence. If elaboration is
required,
what precisely does it mean? That was a question considered, albeit in a rather different context, in
Re
P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625 , paras [120], [125]. This court said it "has a meaning lying somewhere between 'indispensable' on the one hand and 'useful', '
reasonable'
or 'desirable' on the other hand", having "the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or
reasonable
or desirable." In my judgment, that is the meaning, the connotation, the word 'necessary' has in rule 25.1 ."
requirement
for all those working with parents in care proceedings to be sensitive to their needs. I
referred
to the Advocates Gateway and the need for all those working in this part of the justice system to be
familiar
with it and apply its principles in
West
Northamptonshire
Council
v KA (Intermediaries) [
2024]
EWHC
79 at [46]. It would only be appropriate to order a psychological assessment
relevant
to the Court process if the approach in the Advocates Gateway was plainly insufficient.
Conclusions
resolve
the proceedings, and in my view should never have been made. The fact that Mr Leach
referred
to taking a "belt and braces" approach indicates strongly that the proper test was not being considered either by counsel when she advised or by the solicitors when they made the application. Unfortunately, such misconceived applications are exceedingly common, particularly in
respect
of applications for psychologists to undertake cognitive assessments.
resources,
both in the courts, but also in the local authorities and Cafcass when they lead to unnecessary hearings and unnecessary expense. It is important that they are not granted without the Court properly addressing the correct test.
referred
to a psychological assessment being useful in determining what support the Mother would need to help care for the child in the future. But that is not the purpose of the Part 25 application. Further, and in any event, that type of analysis is one that all social workers should necessarily be very
familiar
with. There was again nothing in this case which justified going beyond normal good social work practice.
report
would be "nice to have" or might help in determining what psychological support the parent might need in the future. That is not necessary to
resolve
the proceedings.
reasons
I
refuse the application for a psychological assessment.