Case No. ZE20C00658

.F)Needless to say, the above problems with the LIFT assessment which caused the parties such significant and understandable concerns at the conclusion of the LIFT evidence led to unnecessary and avoidable delay and further expense.G)I feel obliged to refer this case to HHJ Atkinson and my Family Division Liaison Judge, so that appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that those conducting LIFT assessments and the BeST? research programme managers and practitioners can be reminded of their obligations as court-instructed experts and to ensure that no families are disadvantaged and no aspect of that valuable programme is jeopardised.30.LEGAL FRAMEWORK & EVIDENCE31.This application is governed by the Children Act 1989. X’s welfare is paramount and no order should be made unless it is in his interests. In coming to my decisions in this case I have borne in mind the factors in the welfare checklist set out in s1 Children Act 1989 and that delay should be avoided as not being in a child’s interests.32.Delay has been unavoidably incurred in this case, but fortunately not to X’s overall detriment given that he has lived and will continue to live with his M.33.Each family member's European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 8 rights to respect to private and family life are engaged, and any intervention of the court must be to promote those rights, to balance competing rights, and in doing so to give appropriate precedence to the welfare of X and ensure that any intervention is necessary and proportionate. It is essential to bear in mind the principle that it is preferable, while also considering a child's needs, for them to be brought up within their own family. 34.I have borne in mind the helpful summary of the relevant law that was approved recently by the Court of Appeal in