Factual and Procedural Background
This case concerns care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 involving a child, N, born in February 2020. The parents had a previous child, A, born in May 2021, who died in October 2021. The father is charged with the murder of A, with a trial scheduled later in the year, and both parents face charges related to neglect of the children and, in the mother's case, causing or allowing the death of A. The local authority initiated these proceedings, which have been delayed due to the ongoing criminal trial and other reasons.
The court previously permitted an independent social worker (ISW) to assess the parents, resulting in a detailed report identifying significant parental vulnerabilities, including emotional and mental health issues, substance misuse, and a history of trauma and neglect experienced by both parents during childhood. The ISW recommended therapeutic input and suggested that psychological assessments of the parents could provide further useful information.
The mother applied for permission to instruct an expert psychologist to conduct a psychological assessment of herself, supported by the father but opposed by the local authority and the Children's Guardian. The court heard submissions to determine whether such an expert report is necessary to assist in resolving the care proceedings justly.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a psychological assessment of the mother is necessary to assist the court in resolving the care proceedings justly under s.13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014.
- Whether the existing evidence, including the ISW report, sufficiently informs the court of the mother's parenting capacity, vulnerabilities, and needs without the need for expert psychological evidence.
- The appropriate application of the statutory test for permission to instruct expert evidence in children proceedings, balancing necessity, welfare impact, and procedural considerations.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Mother)
- A psychological assessment is necessary to enable the court to understand the origins of the mother's difficulties and how they may be addressed, including the timescale for change.
- Without expert evidence, the court cannot adequately assess the mother's ability to access and benefit from support, nor the potential for mitigating her difficulties to care for the child.
- The assessment would increase the range of realistic welfare options, which is crucial given the absence of other family carers and the real possibility of adoption.
- The mother has engaged to some extent with support services for drug use and mental health, indicating potential for progress that expert evidence could clarify.
- There is sufficient time before the final hearing to complete the assessment without impacting the case timetable.
Supporting Arguments (Father)
- Supports the mother's application, emphasizing the importance of having all realistic options before the court regarding the child's care.
- Argues expert evidence is needed to understand what support and therapy the mother requires and the timescales for effective intervention.
Respondent Arguments (Local Authority)
- Opposes the application, submitting that the court already has detailed, comprehensive evidence from the ISW report outlining the mother's difficulties and parenting deficits.
- Contends an expert psychological assessment is not necessary to understand the origin of the mother's difficulties or the support required.
- The ISW report clearly identifies the steps the mother needs to take, particularly addressing substance misuse and engaging with a parenting course.
- Expert evidence would not add necessary information and would cause unnecessary delay and expense.
Respondent Arguments (Children's Guardian)
- Opposes the application, noting that the ISW's recommendation for psychological assessment is aimed at identifying therapeutic support rather than filling gaps in evidence about parenting capacity.
- Emphasizes the need to consider the realistic extent and timescale for change given the child's needs and the mother's current lack of capacity to change.
- Considers that while potentially helpful, the expert report is not necessary for the court's just determination of the case.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Adams v Canon (1621) Ley's K. B. Rep. 68 |
General rule that only evidence of fact is admissible; expert evidence is an exception. |
Established the foundational principle that expert evidence is exceptional and admissible only under specific statutory provisions. |
| Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] 2 FLR 625 |
Interpretation of "necessary" in the context of expert evidence; necessity lies between "indispensable" and "useful". |
Guided the court's understanding of the stringency of the necessity test for expert evidence under s.13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014. |
| Re H-L (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 5 |
Application of the necessity test for expert evidence in family proceedings. |
Supported the trial judge's discretion in assessing whether expert evidence is necessary to resolve proceedings justly. |
| Re TG (Care Proceedings: Case Management: Expert Evidence) [2013] EWCA Civ 5 |
Heightened necessity test for expert evidence where permanent removal of a child is threatened. |
Considered the forensic context and the higher threshold for expert evidence in care cases with serious outcomes. |
| J v G v Lord Chancellor and Others [2014] 2 FLR 1218 |
Necessity test for expert evidence is a high hurdle to prevent proliferation of unnecessary reports. |
Emphasized the importance of rigorously applying the necessity test to avoid delay and increased costs. |
| Kennedy v Cordia [2016] UKSC 6 |
Expert evidence is admissible only if it assists the court and is necessary for proper resolution. |
Reinforced the requirement that expert opinion must be necessary, not merely helpful, for admissibility. |
| Re C (A Child) (Procedural Requirements of a Part 25 Application) [2015] EWCA Civ 539 |
Rationale for strict application of necessity test in expert evidence in family cases. |
Supported the court's rigorous approach to permitting expert evidence to prevent unnecessary expense and delay. |
| Rehan Malik v Governor of HM Prison Hindley (No.2) [2022] EWHC 2684 (Admin) |
Warning against allowing pragmatic considerations to override the strict necessity test. |
Affirmed that availability of time to complete an expert assessment does not alter the necessity test. |
| Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075 |
Adoption as an option of last resort; holistic evaluation of welfare and realistic options required. |
Informed the court's approach to assessing care plans and the importance of thorough welfare analysis. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully considered the statutory framework governing expert evidence in children proceedings, particularly s.13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014, which requires expert evidence to be necessary to assist the court to resolve proceedings justly. The court acknowledged the detailed and comprehensive nature of the ISW report, which already sets out the mother's parenting deficits, the origins of those difficulties, and the support required.
The court found that the matters the proposed psychological assessment would cover—such as cognitive assessment, psychological formulation, impact of trauma, substance misuse, risk of harm, and capacity to change—are sufficiently addressed in the existing ISW report. The ISW's recommendations for support and therapeutic interventions do not hinge on the psychological assessment, and the ISW's conclusions are not conditional upon such a report.
The court noted that the mother has not yet consistently engaged with support services, particularly regarding substance misuse, which the ISW identifies as a primary hurdle before other parenting deficits can be addressed. Given this, the court concluded that an expert psychological report would not add necessary information to determine the proceedings justly.
The court rejected arguments based on the availability of time to complete the assessment, emphasizing that the necessity test is substantive and cannot be satisfied merely because there is time to undertake the expert evidence. The court also considered the heightened stakes in care cases where adoption is a real possibility but held that this does not lower the threshold for necessity.
Overall, the court applied a rigorous interpretation of necessity, consistent with the statutory test and relevant case law, concluding that the application for permission to instruct a psychological expert was not justified.
Holding and Implications
The court dismissed the application for permission to instruct an expert psychologist to assess the mother.
The direct effect of this decision is that the court will proceed to determine the care proceedings based on the existing evidence, including the detailed ISW report, without the addition of expert psychological evidence. The decision underscores the court’s strict adherence to the statutory necessity test for expert evidence in children proceedings, reinforcing that expert reports must be indispensable rather than merely helpful. No new precedent was established; rather, the ruling affirms the application of established principles to the facts of this case.