Care proceedings - extension of residential assessment - court's jurisdiction to order

In Re G (A Child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president, Lords Justice Thorpe and Latham): 27 January 2003

The mother applied to extend the residential assessment she had been undergoing, together with the father and the baby who was the subject of the interim care order.

Although expert opinion was unanimous that extension was essential in the light of significant change in the mother, the local authority proposed placing the baby with the father and paternal grandmother, allowing the mother daily contact and weekly psychotherapy.

The judge concluded he had no jurisdiction to order the extension since the assessment had become therapy.

The mother appealed.

Jonathan Cohen QC and Charles Hale (instructed by Hillman Smart & Spicer, Eastbourne) for the mother; Andrew McFarlane QC and Gemma Taylor (instructed by county secretary, Kent County Council, Maidstone) for the local authority; Gary Crawley (instructed by Heringtons, Eastbourne) for the children's guardian.

Held, allowing the appeal, that section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989, which was to be construed purposively, gave the court jurisdiction to order or prohibit any assessment that involved the participation of the child and was directed to providing the court with the material which, in the court's view, was required to enable it to reach a proper decision at the final hearing of the application for a care order; that the court should not seek to draw a distinction between assessment and therapy, since permissible assessments enabling the court to obtain the information required, could well contain the provision of a variety of services, supports and treatments, with or without accommodation; and that the extension should be granted.