NG23C50181 - [2025] EWHC 810 (Fam)

An application for psychological assessment of the M and R2 was refused on 5 December 2023 and the case was originally listed to an IRH on 18 January 2024. Further time was needed for alternative carer assessments and this led to the re-timetabling of final evidence and the IRH being relisted on 8 March 2024.

There were then applications for further connected persons assessments of other family members and an assessment of R3 and his partner, which can only be described as ambitious given his mental health situation. The IRH was again adjourned, this time to 15 April 2024.

As I have said above, 26 weeks expired at the end of February 2023.

On 26 March 2024 there was a case management hearing at which the LA applied for the children to be placed with Z, who at that time was considering applying to be a Special Guardian. It appears from the order that the LA were considering making placement applications but had not made up their mind. The IRH was adjourned again, with further case management directions.

On 3 May there was a further hearing at which the Guardian applied for a psychological assessment of A, which was refused.

On 23 July 2024 there was a further CMO when the case was set down for a four day final hearing in the week commencing 22 October 2024. I note that by that date the case would have been in approximately Week 60. The case was set down for final hearing without an effective IRH, which should have narrowed issues, and quite possibly determined threshold.

On 15 October 2024 the LA applied for the final hearing to be adjourned because Z was unwell and it was not clear what her prognosis would be.

There was a further case management hearing on 25 October 2024. Z’s health situation was very unclear, so it was not possible to determine her ability to care for the children in the long term. There was also an issue around R3’s capacity, and whether it would be necessary to instruct the Official Solicitor. The case was again set down for final hearing, this time on 17 February 2025 for four days. That the final hearing had to be adjourned was perhaps inevitable. However, it was in my view extremely unfortunate and surprising that at least part of the hearing in October was not used to agree, or determine threshold. Z had no role in that issue. The fact that threshold was not “nailed down” much earlier in the proceedings led to repeated listings of long hearings that were then adjourned.

At the October hearing there was an order for the M and R2 to file their final evidence by 24 January 2024. They failed to do so.

By the morning of what should have been the final hearing before DJ Dinan-Hayward on 17 February 2025 the Mother had still not filed her final statement. For that hearing, and I believe earlier hearings, a large number of the key documents, including the LA’s opening note and the M’s position statement were not uploaded to the HMCTS FPL Portal. This meant that it was not possible to quickly review the case and understand the parties’ positions.

Unfortunately, shortly before the hearing of 17 February 2025 the M had suffered a miscarriage. She had been in hospital over the weekend before the hearing. The parents applied to adjourn the hearing, but DJ Dinan-Hayward decided that it could go ahead on the last two days of the four day listing.

The M and R2 appealed this decision and HHJ Carter heard the appeal on 19 February 2024 given the urgency and the fact that there was no Circuit Judge available in the local family court that week. HHJ Carter allowed the appeal, acknowledging that DJ Dinan-Hayward was placed in an extremely difficult position. However, HHJ Carter determined that given the medical evidence about the M’s condition, and the difficulties she would have faced proceeding with the case and giving evidence, the District Judge had been “wrong” not to adjourn the case. HHJ Carter pointed out that threshold should have been determined at a much earlier stage, and if that had been done it could have been possible for the District Judge to proceed on submissions.

The matter was then listed before me for directions on 3 March 2025.

The M filed her evidence, which should have been filed on 24 January 2024 on 28 February 2025. A number of key documents were again not placed on the FPL Portal until the weekend before the hearing, and Mr Clulee’s position statement was only received on the morning of the hearing.

The issues at the hearing entirely changed when the Court received R2’s position statement on 28 February 2025, which conceded both threshold and care orders.