Court of Appeal Rules on Procedural Fairness in Care Proceedings

Background

The Court of Appeal delivered a significant ruling in the case of O (Care Proceedings), addressing the procedural fairness in care proceedings involving a ten-month-old child, O. The appeal arose from a decision made by HH Judge Earley at the Family Court in Worthing, which excluded the mother as a future carer for O due to procedural irregularities.

Case History

O, the subject of the proceedings, was born on 6 August 2023 and has three older siblings aged 10, 9, and 7 years. The local authority initiated care proceedings due to longstanding concerns about domestic abuse in the parents' relationship and the children's exposure to that abuse. Despite the mother’s love for her children, assessments concluded that she did not accept the need for changes or support.

In July 2023, HH Judge Earley made several findings, including that the mother had been subjected to coercive and controlling behavior by the father, and that the children had suffered significant emotional harm. The mother was deemed to have failed in protecting her children from this harm. Following the judgment, the three older children were placed with extended family members under full care orders.

Proceedings for O

Immediately after O's birth, care proceedings were started, and he was placed in foster care. The mother proposed several potential carers for O, but the local authority’s assessments found none viable. The local authority proposed adoption for O, leading to a final hearing in February 2024. During this hearing, potential carers from the father's extended family were identified, prompting an adjournment for a full assessment.

The mother’s request for further assessment was denied by Judge Earley, who found previous assessments thorough and fair. The judge ruled out the mother as a realistic option for O’s care, leading to the mother’s appeal on grounds of procedural unfairness.

Grounds for Appeal

The mother’s appeal argued that the judge’s decision to exclude her as a carer was procedurally unfair. Key points included the lack of notice that the judge was considering this decision, the absence of opportunity for the mother to present her case or provide instructions to her legal team, and the fact that the mother had not given oral evidence.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Baker, found that the judge’s decision was a serious procedural irregularity. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, especially in cases involving the removal of a child from their parent. The mother had not been given a fair opportunity to present her case or challenge the evidence against her.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, amending the order to delete the recital that excluded the mother as a future carer for O. The case was transferred to a different judge for an urgent case management hearing, with the hope of maintaining the final hearing date in August 2024.

Implications

This ruling underscores the necessity of procedural fairness in family law cases, particularly those involving care proceedings. The decision highlights the court’s duty to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, especially when significant decisions about a child’s future are at stake.

The case also reaffirms the principles established in previous rulings, emphasizing that judges must exercise caution and ensure procedural fairness when making decisions that could significantly impact the lives of children and their families.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is expected to influence future care proceedings, reinforcing the need for thorough and fair assessments and the importance of giving parents a fair chance to contest decisions affecting their children.