Key Facts
- •Application for a psychologist to undertake a cognitive assessment of the mother in care proceedings.
- •Mother's solicitor sought to withdraw the application shortly before the hearing.
- •The application was made late, wasting court time and public funds.
- •The child, Y, was born prematurely and placed in a mother and baby foster placement.
- •Interim Threshold alleged mother's failure to engage with antenatal services and risk of harm from association with the father.
- •No evidence in interim Threshold or SWET suggested cognitive impairment or communication difficulties in the mother.
- •The application was made as a 'belt and braces' approach by the mother's solicitor before meeting the mother.
- •Local Authority, Children's Guardian, and Father's representatives opposed the application.
- •The Guardian found the mother understood discussions and only needed simplified language.
Legal Principles
The test for an expert report under FPR Part 25.43 is whether the evidence is "necessary" to assist the court to resolve the proceedings.
FPR Part 25.43
"Necessary" means something between "indispensable" and "useful, reasonable or desirable", having "the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable."
Re HL (A child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655
A psychological assessment should only be ordered if the approach in the Advocates Gateway is plainly insufficient.
West Northamptonshire Council v KA (Intermediaries) [2024] EWHC 79 at [46]
Outcomes
The application for a psychological assessment was refused.
The application did not meet the test of being "necessary" to resolve the proceedings and should not have been made. The 'belt and braces' approach indicated a failure to properly consider the test. The mother's progress and lack of evidence of cognitive impairment supported refusal.