The Court of Appeal on the requirements of social work evidence

Adoption iStock 000010273534XSmall 146x219The Court of Appeal – through the President of the Family Division – has set out what is to be expected of social work evidence in care proceedings. Che Fung Choi comments on key guidance.

In a judgment that has just been released, the Court of Appeal has strongly criticised social work practice, Children’s Guardians and the lower judiciary.

The case of Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 has set out the need for the Court to have and give proper balanced reasoning as to why adoption is the right plan for the child. Several cases had gone before the Court of Appeal prior to this case where the same difficulty had arisen and therefore they took this opportunity to provide specific guidance.

The case itself related to two children who were the subjects of care orders and placement orders. The children were in a matched adoptive placement and the application for an adoption order was before the Court.

The birth mother had put in an application for permission to oppose the making of the adoption order, which was heard by a High Court judge and dismissed. As part of six grounds of appeal, the birth mother claimed that she had undergone what was described as “an astonishing change in circumstances”. It was claimed that the judge had not given enough weight to this and put too much weight upon whether there was any prospect of success. Similarly, insufficient consideration had been given to the loss to the children if this chance were not given to her to oppose.

In short, the appeal was completely dismissed. However, the Lord Justices usefully went on to consider the impact of the recent case of Re B on such a case and set out what the Court expects of social work evidence in care proceedings. In particular, the Court detailed what is expected when presenting final statements and oral evidence. As a result, the following points must be taken on board:

  • The Court expects the final statement to state all the possible options for placement. In a typical case this means: Reunification with parents – various options as to orders; Placement with wider family – various options as to orders; Long term foster care – with older children residential units may well be an option; Adoption.
  • Adoption is a last resort. This step is draconian and is a permanent legal severance of the child from their birth parent(s). This must be properly acknowledged. The Court has to approach cases from the least interventionist position.
  • There must be an exercise with each placement option in the form of a positives and negatives ‘balance sheet’. The new template that CAFCASS has introduced for the Children’s Guardian’s Case Analysis has a similar table form to make this visually simple to grasp. A similar format should be considered.
  • The current listing of factors such as the wishes, feelings and needs of the child are all fine and well. However, the social worker must help the Court to put these strands together to demonstrate how each option will affect the child. This should lead to a reasoned and analysed recommendation.
  • The standard paragraph in statements and care plans that a child requires a “safe, stable and nurturing environment and requires a carer who is committed to provide, safety and promote the welfare and wellbeing of the child until the child reaches adulthood” is not acceptable on its own. This must be further expanded to what the child’s specific needs are from the evidence. Only when the social worker is are able to show this can they go on to say how each option is able to provide for these needs.
  • This analysis is not a ‘box ticking’ exercise. It is not a process of elimination when it comes to placement options. Just because the other options may not or will not be good enough for a child does not naturally mean that adoption is the only option left and therefore it has to be the recommendation. The social worker must still give the pros and cons that go with a care plan of adoption and then say why this is still the best option for the child.

The aim is to help the Court make a “global, holistic evaluation” that allows it to have each option “compared, side by side”. The Court is relying upon social workers as experts and only by going through the balancing exercise, based upon the evidence, can this be demonstrated and can the recommendations and conclusion reached be solid and reliable.

Although the guidance given in this case is in relation to final decisions, it is reasonable to assume that a similar level of analysis should be applied at the initial stages of care proceedings when making a recommendation for immediate separation of a child from their parents. Going through the options can only enforce why the child’s safety requires separation. It must also be reiterated that each child is an individual and that this evaluation should be undertaken for each child.

Che Fung Choi is a Senior Solicitor at Kent Legal Services. He can be contacted on 01622 694707 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..