N (Children: Refusal of Placement Orders), Court of Appeal, [2021] EWCA Civ 1652

A local authority, supported by the Children’s Guardian, appeals from the refusal of its application for placement orders in respect of children aged 2 and almost 4 who are presently in foster care. The Judge held that, despite many severe difficulties, it was better for the children to be returned to their mother under care orders, with restrictions on their father’s contact, than for them to be placed for adoption. The key issues are (a) whether there is any prospect of those restrictions being observed and, accordingly, whether the Judge should have refused to make placement orders and (b) having refused to make placement orders, whether the Judge should have made final or interim orders.

The leading authority in respect of the reliability of hair strand testing for drugs and how the results of hair tests should be interpreted by practitioners.  Ronan O’Donovan appeared on behalf of Lextox, one of the laboratories intervening in ongoing care proceedings where the issue of the mother’s use of drugs was called into dispute by a trichologist.  Peter Jackson J held that the variability of findings from hair strand testing does not call into question the underlying science, but underlines the need to treat numerical data with proper caution.

Ronan O’Donovan, leading Ewan Murray, represented the Local Authority in this appeal, brought by a father against the making of a Care Order.  The appeal was dismissed and, in so doing, the Court of Appeal criticised the way in which the appeal was presented on behalf of the father.  The father had hitherto been a self-representing litigant but, when such a litigant secures the services of counsel, he or she should seek permission to serve a single, composite skeleton argument which incorporates all the submissions which counsel proposes to advance.  The detail of the submissions made at this appeal was not set out in writing, despite calls from the respondents to do so, and this had the effect of ambushing the Court and respondents

Order for costs made against Trimega Laboratories following erroneous hair strand testing results being returned in respect of a mother.

Application by parents within a Placement Order application to adduce further medical evidence to challenge findings against them that they had caused non-accidental injury to their son.

Care proceedings — Fact-finding hearing — Whether necessary for risk assessment purposes — Extent to which risk assessment could be undertaken in relation to ‘uncertain perpetrator’.

Adoption — Placement order application — Local authority acting as adoption agency — Approval by appointed officer to precede application for placement order.