So said the original trial judge in Re B (Children : Long Term Foster Care ) 2014
The Court of Appeal took the opposite view.
[That might be the shortest case summary I’ve ever written. Let me see if I can get it into a Tweetable format “Re B – judge says less is more, Court of Appeal says ‘fraid not”]
Some slight elaboration – there was a point in the case where the plan for the children was placement with mother probably under a Supervision Order – that was the case by the end of July 2013. But by the time of the final hearing (September 2013), the Local Authority plan was for the children to remain in long term foster care and be subject to Care Orders.
The Judge agreed with the LA and made Care Orders at the final hearing.
There are some odd nuggets in the case, not least being that the mother’s new boyfriend was using the name of his brother as an alias from time to time, only to find that his brother’s Certificate of Convictions was worse than his own, that either the children were brandishing knives at neighbours or cutting string off a tree branch, and so forth.
There simply wasn’t enough in the judgment to explain to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal why that was the case (they sent it back for re-hearing, they weren’t necessarily saying that the Judge was WRONG, but that the judgment didn’t do sufficient to show whether he was right or wrong). See the underlined section in paragraph 66 for the pithy quotation that will be deployed in all cases (since in any case, one can always find at least one advocate who thinks that the case is ‘finely balanced’ and persists in saying so throughout. Sometimes, to be fair, that advocate is me…)
65. Mr Hall submitted in his skeleton argument that when the new concerns arose in the summer of 2013, the case was finely balanced, and in oral submissions, he acknowledged that there was a mixed picture including extreme concern at times and at other times positive involvement and engagement by M. That is, in my view, an accurate description of the situation. Mr Hall’s submission was that the judge scrutinised the evidence sufficiently, made the required findings, took into account the positives in relation to M as well as the negatives, and carried out the necessary balancing exercise so was entitled to find that care orders should be made. Indeed, he said, proceedings could have been taken earlier. It was notable, however, that in seeking to support the judgment, Mr Hall was obliged to have regular recourse to the underlying reports and statements from which he sought to draw further material to justify the care orders. That this was necessary reinforced my overall conclusion that the judgement did not contain a sufficient review of the evidence that was available to the judge.
66…. The basis on which we allowed the appeal was that the judgment was flawed in its approach to the events which led to LA’s change of mind and was lacking in the detail that was required to substantiate the decision taken. The more finely balanced the decision in a case, the more exacting must be the judge’s approach to the evidence, the more precise his findings of fact on pivotal matters and the fuller the explanation of his route to his determination.
67…the judge’s treatment of the background history compounded the problems with his treatment of more recent events. Mr Hall submitted that the social work chronology revealed pervasive profound concerns about the children. For my part, I have no doubt that a study of the history had the capacity to contribute valuable material to the judge’s decision but, in my view, there was no alternative but to look at it in some detail because it was a mixed picture. There were significant problems but we also know that the case was periodically closed by social services following short interventions and that at times, assessments were complimentary about M and sympathetic to her as a victim of prolonged domestic violence. The threshold criteria agreed were far from detailed and could not be relied upon as sufficiently informative of the history. Accordingly, it was not sufficient for the judge to deal with that history (apart from domestic violence from F) in a single short paragraph (§7) summarising the themes and concluding with the observation, “I need not descend into detail”. In summarising things shortly in this way, the positives and negatives were lost and there was no picture of what was actually happening to the children.
 In short, this was a case which could only be resolved by a detailed and critical review of the evidence, old and new, with each step of the way meticulously charted in the judgment. I have great sympathy with the judge who was trying to reach a determination for the children with reasonable promptness, within the confines of a two day time estimate, and without much offered to him by way of direct evidence. I am conscious that he took trouble to reflect on his decision before giving judgment. However, I am afraid that, for the reasons I have set out, his determination cannot stand.
The thrust of Court of Appeal judgments over the last year, and this goes hand in hand with the transparency agenda, is that a person ought to be able to pick up and read a judgment and understand why the decisions were made, without rummaging around in the background material to try to plug the gaps. It needs to be spelled out.
That has consequences, not least time pressures on the judiciary. A day spent writing a judgment is a luxury in terms of workload, but a necessity now if it is to be fireproof for the Court of Appeal. Where are all these extra Judge days to be found?
[I can’t leave para 67 without saying – well, of course the threshold criteria were far from detailed, that’s because we’re told to squish it into 2 pages. You will see more of this]
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I am in this situation at this very moment, it is ordered that it is to be squished into one side of A4 paper … challenging to say the least.
I suggest the smallest font you can find, unreasonableness works on both sides
Sadly, they thought about that, and stipulated the font size. BUT, you don’t need to repeat anything that is said in the original threshold, when replying as or for a parent, you can just put in the form of words that you would accept in relation to each paragraph, or “this allegation is denied”.
A lot of people (including lawyers) put mitigation in threshold response – and it isn’t really needed in there, you can do that in the statement. The threshold response is just ‘did this happen, did some of it happen (and set out in detail which) or do you say it did not happen’
And if you are a smart alec like me, they also stipulated the line spacing, the margins and the size of the paper. They anticipated wise guys.
Dammit! Smart Alecs … mind you, there’s little else to say, most of it’s producing evidence and oral hearing, with some cross examination thrown in.
Would you mind sharing what the font size is (suspecting Times New Roman 12) and spacing etc? I’d not heard of this
I guess I could hand write it :p
Click to access FPR_PD_27A__Bundles_.pdf
One side of paper, 1 1/2 line spacing, 12 point type. You can pick your own fault. So I pick Wingdings.
I’d be surprised if wingdings are not on the banned list due to being non readable on several OS. Although your reply made me chuckle, imagine trying to sort that lot out! Thanks for clarification on line space etc, which is as I use my HTML anyway
This case demonstrates how passive and useless the role of Guardian (Cafcass) has become. Forced adoption with a substantially reduced threshold is promoted by two arms of the same State which follow the same government pro forced adoption ideology: local (authority) State; and national State (Cafcass). There is no longer any professional social work scrutiny independent of the State.
I’ve come across some excellent Guardians to be fair, the one on the case right now sees through everything. Mind you I’ve also met some pretty horrific ‘copy & paste’ ones who have never met any of the parties in person
Pingback: “I need not descend into detail” | ...