H (Children: Exclusion of Expert Report), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

This was an appeal by the Appellant Local Authority from a case-management decision in care proceedings concerning three children, referred to here as Child 1, Child 2 and Child 3. The appeal concerned Child 2, who had been in foster care since May 2025. The proceedings involved longstanding concerns about parenting, including home conditions, domestic abuse, alleged sexual abuse and parental mental-health issues. [1][2]

Earlier assessments by Social Worker A contemplated Child 2 returning to the Respondent Mother’s care. Following criticism from the Children’s Guardian, the court approved an addendum parenting assessment by Expert A. Expert A instead produced a full assessment, which did not support reunification. [3][4][5][6][7]

The Local Authority later sought permission to rely on Expert A’s report. The Family Court refused retrospective permission, held the report inadmissible, and ordered its removal from the court bundle. [8][9][10][11]

The Court of Appeal granted permission on the issue of whether the report should have been excluded. Following the hearing, it allowed the appeal and directed that the report be restored as admissible evidence. [1][12][13]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Family Court was wrong to exclude Expert A’s report under section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014. [12][14][15]
2. Whether, when applying the statutory factors governing expert evidence, the Family Court adequately considered the potential impact on Child 2’s welfare and the conflicting available evidence. [16][17]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Local Authority’s Arguments

• The original order was insufficiently precise, creating difficulties from the outset. [18]
• The Family Court had not balanced all the statutory factors or considered the effect of exclusion on Child 2’s welfare. [18]
• Exclusion was artificial because the report had already influenced the parties and the latest social-work assessment. [18]

Respondent Mother’s Arguments

• It would be unfair to admit evidence that substantially exceeded the permission originally granted. [19]
• The report was not faithful to the findings made by the court. [19]
• At first instance, the Mother also argued that Expert A’s report should not be admitted because the assessment exceeded its permitted scope and referred without qualification to allegations that had not been raised or proved. [20][21]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 controls the instruction and admission of expert evidence in children proceedings. Expert evidence generally requires the court’s permission, and permission may be granted only where the evidence is necessary to assist the court in resolving the proceedings justly. The court must consider, among other matters, the issues addressed, available alternative evidence, welfare impact, and the effect on the proceedings. [14][22][23][24]

The Court of Appeal recognised that exclusion of evidence is contemplated by the statute and that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with a case-management decision made by a judge with extensive knowledge of the proceedings. [25]

However, the Court concluded that the exclusion could not stand. The earlier court order had determined that further expert evidence was necessary and had approved an assessment by an appropriately qualified professional. Although the order referred only to an “addendum parenting assessment,” it did not sufficiently specify the issues or questions to be addressed. [26]

The Local Authority should nevertheless have returned the matter to court when Expert A could not conduct the assessment in the expected manner. The assessment’s scope should have been clarified before the report was prepared. [27]

Despite those procedural failings, Expert A produced a substantial report after the Mother’s cooperation, and at least some of its contents fell within the evidence contemplated by the permission. Any failure to follow the court’s findings or any excess in scope could be addressed when assessing the report’s reliability and weight; exclusion was not necessary. [28]

The absence of a formal application and supporting evidence could not outweigh the fact that the court had, at least to some extent, endorsed the need for the assessment. [29]

The Family Court had properly criticised the Local Authority’s case management, but had focused on whether another person could give the evidence. It had not adequately considered the welfare consequences of deciding the case without potentially important evidence or the conflicting nature of the other evidence then available. [16]

The evidence was not redundant: Social Worker A supported reunification, while the August statement of Social Worker B opposed it. In that context, Expert A’s evidence could be particularly significant. [17]

Holding and Implications

Appeal allowed. The Family Court’s decision to exclude Expert A’s report was set aside. The report was restored as admissible evidence, and the proceedings were remitted to the Family Court to determine how it should be treated and what weight it should receive after hearing all parties. [1][13]

The Family Court would also decide whether Expert A should give evidence and, if so, which party should call the expert. The direct consequence was that the report could be considered in the continuing care proceedings; the opinion does not identify broader implications or state that a new precedent was established. [13]