J (A Child)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal against determinations made by His Honour Deputy Judge Barber in the Family Court at Sheffield regarding care and placement orders for a young child, referred to as J, born in December 2013. The local authority had applied for a care order and an order authorising adoption, which the judge granted in August 2014 after a three-day hearing. The appeal was brought by J's mother and supported by the father, challenging the adequacy and correctness of the judge's evaluation and findings.

J's mother was herself a young person in the care of the local authority, having experienced abuse and care placement instability. The parents underwent a community-based parenting assessment in early 2014, which concluded that J should not be returned to their care due to concerns including lack of cooperation, motivation, insight, and evidence of domestic violence and substance misuse by the father. The local authority's preferred plan was adoption, supported by the Children's Guardian. The judge's judgment largely recited the local authority's chronology and assessment reports, with limited analysis of oral evidence or detailed findings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge's evaluation and findings sufficiently established the threshold criteria under Children Act 1989, section 31, that the child had suffered or was likely to suffer significant harm.
2. Whether the judge properly conducted the necessary welfare and proportionality analysis concerning the care plan, particularly the plan for adoption.
3. Whether the judge erred in rejecting the parents' application for a residential assessment without adequate reasoning.
4. Whether the judge failed to adequately consider the mother's status as a young person in care and the local authority's statutory duties towards her.
5. Whether the judge failed to properly consider and incorporate the oral evidence, including that of the parents, in his judgment.
6. Whether the judge appropriately applied the legal framework governing care and placement orders, including the tests for dispensing with parental consent under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge's judgment was wholly inadequate, lacking detailed findings of fact and legal analysis, particularly regarding the threshold criteria under Children Act 1989, section 31.
• The judgment failed to reference or evaluate any oral evidence, including that of the parents, rendering the findings unsafe.
• The judge did not consider the impact of adoption on the child or apply the welfare checklists under Children Act 1989, section 1, and Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 1, nor the test for dispensing with parental consent under section 52 of the 2002 Act.
• The failure to acknowledge the mother's status as a child in care was a serious omission, given the local authority's statutory responsibilities and the requirements of Article 8 of the ECHR.
• The parenting assessment and local authority evidence were flawed, lacking sufficient linkage between alleged facts and the conclusion that the child was likely to suffer significant harm.
• The judge erred in rejecting the parents' request for a residential assessment without adequate reasoning.

Respondent's (Local Authority) Arguments

• The judge's judgment, while not ideal, was sufficient and contained the essential elements for a proper determination.
• The judge correctly chose between two options: adjourn for a residential assessment or make a care order with placement for adoption; the latter was not wrong.
• The parents conceded several key threshold facts, supporting the judge's findings.
• The parenting assessments provided the necessary linkage between factual findings and the threshold criteria.
• Any deficiencies in the judgment’s reasoning could have been addressed by requesting supplemental reasons from the judge.

Father's Arguments

• The judgment contains no reference to the father's evidence, which is critical to a proper evaluation.
• The judge failed to conduct the required holistic assessment of all evidence as mandated by case law.
• The father's cannabis use related to periods before and after the child was in care and did not support a threshold finding of significant harm.
• There was no explanation linking the father's cannabis use to harm or risk of harm to the child.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found the judge's judgment to be fundamentally deficient in its evaluation of the evidence and legal issues. The judgment largely consisted of verbatim recitals of local authority documents with minimal or no analysis of oral evidence, including the parents' testimony. The judge failed to make clear findings of fact necessary to support the threshold criteria under Children Act 1989, section 31, particularly concerning the nature and extent of significant harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the child.

The court highlighted the judge's omission to consider the mother's status as a young person in care and the statutory duties owed to her, which was a serious oversight given the impact on welfare considerations and proportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge's rejection of the residential assessment application was accepted as consistent with the evidence and established practice, but the broader welfare and threshold analysis was inadequate. The court stressed that adoption is a measure of last resort and must only be ordered when "nothing else will do," requiring a thorough and reasoned evaluation of alternatives and proportionality.

The court endorsed the principles set out in Re A (A Child), including the need for a clear linkage between facts and threshold findings, the necessity of considering all evidence holistically, and the importance of applying statutory welfare checklists and tests for dispensing with parental consent. The local authority's threshold document was criticized for lacking sufficient detail and linkage to justify the findings.

Given these deficiencies, the court concluded that the judge's decision could not stand, necessitating a full rehearing before a different judge to ensure a proper evaluation and determination of the child's welfare and future.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and set aside the care and placement orders made by the Family Court judge. The case must be reheard in full by a different judge with directions for an early case management hearing to expedite the process.

The direct effect of this decision is to require a fresh hearing to properly assess the threshold criteria, welfare considerations, and proportionality of the care plan for the child. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the judgment reinforces established principles that adoption must be a last resort, founded on clear findings and reasoned analysis. The decision underscores the importance of judicial rigor in care proceedings, especially where adoption is proposed, and the necessity of fully considering the evidence, including oral testimony, and statutory duties towards vulnerable parents.