Sabrina Polak

Sabrina Polak, led by Joanne Brown KC from 4PB, appeared on behalf of the Local Authority in an appeal against a decision of HHJ Wicks.

The child, H, was the Mother’s fifth child. H’s four older siblings had been adopted due to welfare concerns relating to the Mother having exposed her children to the risks of harm arising from her relationship with an abusive partner. Sadly, there were mirror concerns some 10 years on in respect of H. The Local Authority had sought a Care Order with a view, subject to assessment, to H remaining in the care of her foster carers in the long-term pursuant to adoption, with either a placement order application and/or a private adoption application being made in due course. The trial Judge, HHJ Wicks, refused to make a Care Order and made a 12-month Supervision Order. The Local Authority appealed this decision.

Baker LJ, who gave the lead judgment stressed that it “is axiomatic that a judge must consider the totality of the evidence” and accepted the submission of the Local Authority that it was not enough for the Judge to simply say that he did not propose to summarise the evidence that had been read and heard but that he had kept it in his mind when reaching his decision. Baker LJ noted that it was incumbent on the trial judge to give reasons for rejecting the evidence of the social worker as to the longstanding and continuing risks as set out, in particular, in an updating statement, but there was no reference to that statement. Baker LJ determined that “it is necessary for this Court to intervene because the judgment does not provide any or any adequate explanation of the basis on which the judge concluded that the risks had abated to the extent that it was safe to allow H to return to the care of her Mother”. The Judge had not properly weighed the longstanding concerns in the balance against improvements made by the Mother in his evaluation of the risks.

Furthermore, Baker LJ reinforced that it was “equally axiomatic that a judge must not treat the evidence in compartments but must consider each piece in the context of the rest of the evidence” determining that the Judge, in this case, had effectively left the threshold findings in one compartment and considered the improvements made by the Mother in a separate compartment without an analysis of if those positive factors alleviated the risks to H as established in the threshold findings.

The Court of Appeal highlighted that “….[t]he welfare checklist thus provides the structure on which the necessary analysis of risk can be built. The judgment in this case was silent as to this analysis”.

Baker LJ also found that the “deficiencies in the judgment in this case were not capable of repair through the process of seeking clarification”.

The appeal was allowed, the decision was overturned and the case was remitted.