<!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>This handout provides a practical summary of the Pathfinder model which will commence for all cases issued from the 3^{rd of} June 2025 in West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield). This handout is aimed to help barristers, solicitors, and all professionals involved in private family law.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ol> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>What will Pathfinder mean?</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Pathfinder’s commencement from 3^rd June will in West Yorkshire mean an end to the existing Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) until at least March 2026 and, if it goes onto be permanently implemented, forever.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The rules and guidance are set out in: <a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach">https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The intention is that Judges will adopt a proactive, inquisitorial approach, often referred to as a 'lean in' model.<strong> </strong>This problem-solving approach will be familiar to many as mirroring that adopted in the well-established FDAC courts. That approach will be at the forefront of the court's mind in dealing with private law applications under the pilot. Where cases are allocated (at GK1 and GK2 Gatekeeping hearings) to the adjudication track and listed for a determination hearing, the expectation is that the parties will engage the problem solving approach and avoid an adversarial approach to the litigation that sadly became all too familiar under CAP. Beginning this with Judge led conciliation before any submissions is a significant feature of the adjudication track and the problem-solving approach. It is not like the conciliation that takes place at a FHDRA. It is informed by the CIR and the IDVA service where domestic abuse is a feature of the case. Those assessments allow the court to take an evidence-based approach to problem solving and helping the parties to reach agreement.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>That judge led conciliation is recorded as <strong>an essential component</strong> of <strong>the decision hearing i</strong>n the Gatekeeping order and is ordered to take place before submissions or evidence is heard in the anticipation that settlement is possible. </li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Experience in the early pilot areas establishes that it is effective on refocusing the parties on the children and their welfare and what is achievable within the life of the proceedings. It is also worth noting that by virtue of FPR 2010 Rule 1.4(g) it has for quite some time already been part of the court's duty to help the parties settle the whole or part of the case.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>In each case allocated at Gatekeeping to the adjudication track a single Child Impact Report (CIRs) is ordered and prepared by CAFCASS. The CIR replaces safeguarding letters and Section 7 reports, the idea is that this is placing the child’s voice at the forefront of proceedings.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The Pathfinder process begins when an application (C100 or C1A) is issued.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The court reviews the application and sends an order to Cafcass (Day 1).</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Safeguarding checks are requested and completed within seven working days.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The case is allocated to a Family Court Adviser. The level of intervention is decided and reviewed by a Cafcass manager.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>If a full assessment is required, the FCA completes a Child Impact Report within 40 working days, minus the seven used for screening.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Children are seen (if it is decided it’s a good idea) in person within 15 working days from allocation. In pilots elsewhere 67% of children were seen (compared to just 30% of children under the CAP being seen at any stage)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The child’s views and their views on the recommendations appear early in the CIR. CIRs provide recommendations upfront, with consent, photographs. CIRs differ from Section 7 reports by beginning with the child’s lived experience, not parental narratives. safeguarding, agency input, and direct work findings are integrated into one report. The focus is analytical, with less emphasis on conflicting narratives.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>In cases where domestic abuse is a feature, IDFIS (Independent Domestic Violence and Family Support) workers support those who say this is a feature during proceedings. They provide Cafcass with structured assessments and insights into what they have called ‘primary victim dynamics.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The theory is that these front-loaded assessments enable faster and better-informed decisions.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The need for any Fact-finding hearings is reduced due to early risk identification and intervention.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The CIR informs the <strong>Decision Hearing</strong>. This Decision Hearing replaces the traditional First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA). The intention is that Final orders can be made or further directions given at that Decision Hearing.<strong> NB the intention is that this Decision Hearing is – just as it sounds - in many cases the one and only hearing – so one at which a Final Order maybe made</strong></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Until Pathfinder has ‘bedded in ‘practitioners should be alerted to risks inherent in how CIRs are prepared – for example where a child is interviewed at the resident parent's home, especially if that parent is present or nearby. The setting may influence the child's responses due to perceived pressure, loyalty conflicts, or coaching. Best practice recommends conducting interviews in neutral settings and without the resident parent present, using open-ended and non-leading questions but there is no guidance currently published suggesting that these interviews are conducted neutrally so it maybe that they are not.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>The Pilot findings</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>In other areas where the pilot schemes have operated the average case conclusion time under Pathfinder was 16 weeks, compared to 67 weeks under CAP. There are no reported statistics yet of what proportion of those cases ended with one parent having no contact or any other statistics on outcome yet available.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Only 1–2 fact-finding hearings were listed per area during the pilot quarter.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>It is suggested that Children participate earlier and more meaningfully in proceedings under Pathfinder.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>As there are fewer hearings, it’s important to understand that this first ever hearing may well also be the last and so it is essential to make it count – judge led conciliation is intended to settle the case, if it doesn’t then submissions should be far more focused on the intended result and child-centred. Representatives and their Clients should be prepared for early child engagement and potential judicial conversations leading to a final order at this first ‘Decision’ hearing.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Have there already been appeals in Pathfinder cases in earlier pilot areas?</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Re A and B Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWFC 284 (B)/ <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/284.html">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/284.html</a> was a case decided in Wales ( where Pathfinder started on 29^th April 2024) the issue was whether the children should go to a school in Wales or in England .</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The order appealed was against a decision of the lay justices ordering the children to attend a school not recommended in the Child Impact Report (CIR). Procedural and analytical failures in handling a Pathfinder adjudication track case were identified.CIRs under Pathfinder are not s.7 reports but carry <em>substantial evidential weight</em> and they are usually the <em>primary welfare evidence</em> in Pathfinder adjudication track cases. Courts must not disregard a CIR <em>without clear, reasoned justification</em>. Effectively -A CIR recommendation should be followed unless a “good reason” for departure is clearly stated and supported by evidence. In this case no reasons were given for departure from that recommendation. Further, the welfare checklist (Children Act 1989, s1(3)) must be <em>actively considered</em>. Lay justices in this case failed to <em>analyse or balance the children’s differing views</em>, or the practical impact on each parent. Courts should either <em>expressly or clearly implicitly</em> address the welfare checklist when determining outcomes.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>&nbsp;Procedural Fairness and the CIR Author</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>A further issue in the case was that the father’s solicitor <em>unilaterally contacted</em> the Cafcass officer with questions post-GK2, without court permission or prior disclosure to mother. The response was disclosed <em>only on the morning of the hearing</em>. Parties <strong>must not bypass</strong> case management directions. Any challenge to the CIR must be: Made within <strong>7 days of GK2</strong> by applying to vary the order, and the party either seeks the officer’s attendance, or requests permission to pose written questions.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Judge-Led Conciliation Is Mandatory in the Adjudication Track</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The most important failing however in this case was the failure to have judge led conciliation which the adjudication track <strong>requires before submissions or evidence</strong>. In this case, it was <strong>entirely missed</strong>, undermining Pathfinder’s problem-solving ethos.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Practice Point:</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Parties and judges must ensure <strong>conciliation takes place</strong>, unless it is considered inappropriate after submissions; and that decision is <strong>clearly recorded</strong> with reasons.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>&nbsp;GK2 Orders and Variation Rights</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>GK2 hearings are conducted by the court on paper. The order:<ul><li>Sets the track (e.g., adjudication),</li></ul><ul><li>Limits evidence,</li></ul><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>States whether the Cafcass officer will attend.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Parties have a <strong>7-day right</strong> (under FPR r.4.3) to apply to vary a GK2 order.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Practitioners must advise clients of this right, especially where evidence may need expanding.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Departure from CIR Requires Active Judicial Engagement</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Judges must not just identify perceived flaws in the CIR—they must:<ul><li>Resolve evidential disputes themselves,</li></ul><ul><li>Fill gaps using available parental evidence, or</li></ul><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Seek further input where necessary.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A court <strong>cannot substitute analysis</strong> without clearly showing how it reached its conclusion.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Pathfinder encourages:<em> Problem-solving, non-adversarial</em> approach, Front-loaded investigation via CIR, Avoidance of escalation into contested residence litigation. All professionals must work to reduce conflict and avoid missing procedural steps that can widen disputes and increase harm to children.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Is there a viable alternative to Pathfinder in a Private Law Children case?</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Time will tell how Pathfinder fits in West Yorkshire. Non court based dispute resolution (NCDR) offers alternatives to Pathfinder such as mediation or arbitration or both together – med-arb where mediation resolves as much as possible with an arbitrator then making a decision on the matters that remain in issue.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>For a fully reasoned judgment in any dispute over for example - live with/spend time, relocation, choice of school cases, specific issue order - the alternative to court under Pathfinder is to refer the case to an arbitrator or &nbsp;‘private judge’ for a binding and reasoned decision by Arbitration . Referral is under the Children Scheme to the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators ( IFLA) for Arbitration: <a href="https://ifla.org.uk">https://ifla.org.uk</a> &nbsp;<a href="https://ifla.org.uk/search-for-an-arbitrator/">https://ifla.org.uk/search-for-an-arbitrator/</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The equivalent of an indication by way of private FDR in a children case may also be a prudent move – ‘Early Neutral Evaluation ‘– involves consideration and indication on the merits of a case by an experienced barrister or solicitor pre-issue so there is a realistic view of the outcome.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>For further information about any of the above please contact <a href="mailto:Julia.Nelson@parklaneplowden.co.uk">Julia.Nelson@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Our Public Law team are thrilled to be hosting Casey Baldwin&nbsp;from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dnalegal.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DNA Legal</a> to discuss 'Challenging Expert Toxicology Evidence including the issues around racial bias in drug testing and Soberlink - our new Alcohol Monitoring device.'</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Registration will be from 4:30pm with the talk starting at 5pm and finishing at 6pm. There is an opportunity for drinks and networking with our Public Law team after the event.&nbsp; </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Please confirm your attendance by emailing our events team:&nbsp;<a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em><strong>Time:</strong>&nbsp;4:30pm - 6pm<br><strong>Location:</strong>&nbsp;Parklane Plowden Chambers, 19 Westgate, LS1 2RD</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are pleased to announce that Parklane Plowden pupil, Avaia Williams, has again had an article published in the Family Law Journal (April 2025).</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In this article, Avaia explores two recent High Court decisions, with wholly unique backgrounds, in which members of chambers Martin Kingerley KC, Rebecca Musgrove, and Nathaniel Garner acted respectively. In both A Local Authority v W [2024] EWFC 350 ('Re W') and A Local Authority v C [2024] EWFC 336 ('Re C'), the children’s mothers had died in tragic circumstances leaving nobody able to exercise parental responsibility.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A key theme within both judgments was whether harm caused pre-birth could be attributed to a parent who is deceased when the date for proceedings having been issued is post-death. In Re W, the mother took her own life whilst the baby was in utero, thus creating a lacuna whereby for a period of time, post mother’s death but before the child’s birth, there were no legal people in existence. In Re C, the mother also took her own life via a house fire, in the process almost killing C, here an issue arose whereby the Local Authority only issued proceedings a month later.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Justice Peel found in Re W that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“The court may not have jurisdiction until the child is born, but in my judgment the court is entitled, when considering threshold, to take into account the parental care given to the child before birth, even if the parent is dead at the relevant date point of either protective measures starting or at the point of application. If the question posed is: “can the care given by the parent encompass care given to a child in utero” I suggest that the answer, in principle, is yes.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>And noted in Re C:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“. . . the attributability requirement is not to be confined to, or aligned with, the date of the application. C was at the date of the application suffering significant harm. That harm was, on the evidence currently available, attributable to the actions of her mother a mere 7 days previously. It would be extraordinary if, in such a situation, the Local Authority could not take steps to protect the child. It would lead to the anomalous situation that the court would not be able even to inquire into threshold, however, desirable that might be, or seek protective orders. The purpose of Part IV of the Act is to enable children who are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm caused by parents to be protected from that harm by Local Authority intervention. To neuter s31 because the parental perpetrator of harm is no longer alive would be an unexpected, and unfortunate consequence. But in my judgment that is not the intention of the Act, nor is it what the Act says. A plain reading of the words in s31(2)(b) that the harm must be attributable to “the care given to the child” must include past care, i.e before the date of the application, which led to the application itself. The wording does not expressly add “at the time of the application” or some such rider. Nor does it say that a parent must be alive at the time of the application. If my analysis is correct, then it matters not whether the parent is alive, or dead, or missing. What matters is whether the LA can establish (i) harm at the date of the application (or, if earlier, when protective measures implemented and carried through to the date of the application) and (ii) attributability of that harm i.e that it is a consequence of parental acts or omissions.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Avaia explores the impact and potential consequences of these two judgments, questioning whether Parliament intended for unborn children to be considered in the way that Mr Justice Peel allowed for, a question which raises legitimate concern given the legal definition of a foetus was not clarified in law until after the drafting of the Children Act 1989.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The court also relied on the judgment in Re M [1994] 2 FLR 577 which causes concern that the goal posts in relation to threshold may have been moved; drug or alcohol use in utero to establish a basis for pre-birth harm almost always arises as an issue as being a risk of significant harm for the future, not necessarily relied upon as a sole condition or actual harm caused – to consider a hypothetical where a mother uses drugs or alcohol for the first 5 months of pregnancy, she then stops completely and it is agreed she has made a full recovery, upon birth the baby has drug and/or alcohol related concerns, is threshold established? Prior to the judgments of Peel J, it would have been more readily argued no, now, the situation is not so clear.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For more about the judgments and potential implications in practice, and to read the discussion, you can find Avaia’s full article in Family Law Journal (April 2025 issue) <a href="https://plus.lexis.com/uk/document/?pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials-uk%2Furn:contentItem:6FHB-X6W3-RSP5-648C-00000-00&amp;selectedTocLevelKey=TAABAABAAKAAC&amp;crid=1c13272e-a979-4a69-9025-d4faca8557a8&amp;cbc=1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Avaia Williams</a> is a second-six family and COP pupil and is quickly building a busy children law and Health and Welfare practice. He has already acted in multi-day final hearings and complex capacity matters.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/rebecca-musgrove/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rebecca Musgrove</a> is a family and Court of Protection barrister who often acts in lengthy and complex proceedings and regularly appears in the High Court. She has particular expertise in Deprivation of Liberty cases concerning children.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/nathaniel-garner/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nathaniel Garner</a> is a specialist family practitioner, with emphasis on serious and complex cases involving children. He is recognised by Chambers and Partners for his exceptional work and is often instructed in high profile cases on Circuit.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/martin-kingerley-kc/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Martin Kingerley KC</a> is a door tenant who took silk in 2020 and was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2023. He is instructed in some of the most serious and complex public law cases and is an expert on matters concerning surrogacy and conception.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Join <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/daniel-pitt/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Daniel Pitt</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/alex-taylor/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Alex Taylor</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/charlotte-wilce/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Charlotte Wilce</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/patrick-hulley/">Patrick Hulley</a>, and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/richard-harrington/">Richard Harrington</a> from Parklane Plowden's family team for a Family Finance &amp; Children Law Update.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Light snacks and refreshments will be served.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Time:</strong> 2pm<br><strong>Location:</strong> Sheffield and District Law Society, 8 Campo Lane, Sheffield, S1 2EF</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If you would like to attend, please contact <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</strong></a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The language used in legal proceedings can have a profound and enduring impact on everyone involved, particularly within family cases, documents such as thresholds build a stage for care proceedings, and case summaries and openings set the tone in private disputes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For many years, the phrase “committed suicide” was routinely employed to describe the act of ending one’s own life, it continues to be used significantly. Such usage stems from an era when suicide was deemed both a criminal offence and a moral failing. Despite the fact that the Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised suicide in England and Wales, this outdated terminology persists, carrying with it undertones of wrongdoing and judgement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Family proceedings regularly require the court, legal and children professionals, parents, families, and children themselves to confront difficult and emotional subjects, including in many cases a party’s suicidal ideation, attempts, or the tragic death of a loved one by suicide. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>When these events are discussed – in written submissions, thresholds, case summaries, oral hearings and questioning – the phrase “committed suicide” can reinforce the notion that a criminal, sinful or immoral act has taken place. It can also exacerbate the distress of bereaved family members, who may already feel guilt, shame, or confusion around their loss. In a modern legal framework that appreciates the complexity of mental health challenges, it is more fitting to use language that reflects empathy and neutrality, rather than implying culpability.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>By adopting phrases such as “died by suicide,” “ended their life,” or “attempted suicide” legal practitioners acknowledge the profound despair and social or psychological factors that may have contributed to a person’s actions, rather than suggesting criminality or any degree of blame. These more sensitive choices of words also align with contemporary efforts to destigmatise mental health difficulties, recognising that individuals who feel driven to suicide need compassionate support rather than judgement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In family court proceedings, especially those involving young children, the written record of events endures long after the hearing has concluded. The documents placed before the court can resurface in a child’s life later on, often when they reach adulthood, and the language used in those records may shape how they perceive their parent’s or relative’s struggles, possibly shaping their own struggles. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If children discover references to a loved one as having “committed” an act akin to a crime, they may feel that person is being condemned or blamed, which can compound the emotional toll on a family already grappling with tragedy. In contrast, a neutral phrase such as “she died by suicide” conveys the difficult reality without suggesting guilt, offering a more measured and supportive tone for the child who might later read these reports.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>When speaking in open court, counsel and judges alike can maintain a respectful atmosphere by avoiding language laden with historical stigma. Simple adjustments – saying “she took her life in June 2022” or “he attempted suicide following a period of acute depression” – allow the court to focus on the relevant facts of the case without further burdening those who have suffered a distressing loss. This approach does not obscure the gravity of what has occurred; rather, it upholds the dignity of everyone involved and fosters an environment in which mental health issues can be addressed more openly.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Some are likely to ask why such a seemingly minor shift in vocabulary matters, to consider this hill “woke”, or question whether this truly constitutes an essential “hill to die on” in the midst of complex family proceedings. Yet the language we choose to employ sets the tone of our interactions, the record we leave behind, and the compassion we show to those enduring profound pain. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Family cases are often among the most emotionally charged in the legal system, and the documents emanating from these proceedings can resonate for years to come. Ensuring that our words reflect empathy, and an up-to-date understanding of mental health challenges is therefore not merely a linguistic preference; it is a crucial aspect of safeguarding the emotional well-being of individuals and families well beyond the conclusion of a case. In short, professionals have a greater obligation to those involved in proceedings than simply offering advice and representation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Ultimately, by moving away from phrases that connote wrongdoing, legal professionals can better serve the interests of justice and humanity alike. In doing so, they acknowledge that suicide, decriminalised half a century ago, remains a profoundly tragic outcome of an individual’s suffering, rather than an act deserving of blame. This small but significant change in language supports a more compassionate discourse, helping to ensure that families in the throes of crisis are met with the sensitivity and support they so urgently require.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>___</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/">Avaia</a> has volunteered with the Nightline Association and ShoutUK as a crisis intervention worker, supporting over 150 individuals in mental health crises, and has delivered talks to charity groups, schools, and government departments on the impact of youth mental health on safeguarding.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Listen to Parklane Plowden’s latest PLP Podcast – Analysing the changes and practical considerations of the Private Law Pathfinder process.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden family barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/maxine-best/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Maxine Best</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/katherine-goss/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Katherine Goss</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/deborah-shield/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Deborah Shield</a> talk through the changes coming with the Private Law Pathfinder process.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Following the pilot’s launch in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022, it expanded to South East Wales in April and goes live in West Yorkshire in June 2025.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Compared to previous locations where the pilot was operating, the launch in West Yorkshire represents a significant step as it will see a larger volume of cases.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The programme’s aim is improving the experiences of children and parents as cases progress through the family court system by facilitating information sharing.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This includes between families alongside different agencies such as the police, local authorities and the courts supported by case progression officers who form a key part in the new process.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The three look at the programme’s background and discuss the new model’s implementation and timelines, including information gathering, decision-making and the review process as well as considerations around Child Impact Reports.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The podcast also examines the key differences of the new Pathfinder Process compared to the current Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) model in family courts and practical considerations practitioners need to keep in mind.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Listen to the podcast below.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Helpful resources and further reading:</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Private Law Working Group Final Report<br><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Private-Law-Advisory-Group-Report-Dec-2020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Private-Law-Advisory-Group-Report-Dec-2020.pdf</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Family Solutions Group Report<br><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FamilySolutionsGroupReport_WhatAboutMe_12November2020-2.pdf-final-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FamilySolutionsGroupReport_WhatAboutMe_12November2020-2.pdf-final-2.pdf</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Harm Panel Report<br><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dcade90e075c4e144bfd/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dcade90e075c4e144bfd/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Practice Direction 36Z<br><a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Commentary from the President in March 2022<br><a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/a-view-from-the-presidents-chambers-march-2022/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/a-view-from-the-presidents-chambers-march-2022/</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Government Press Release – March 2022<br><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pioneering-approach-in-family-courts-to-support-domestic-abuse-victims-better" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pioneering-approach-in-family-courts-to-support-domestic-abuse-victims-better</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Bar Council Press Release – 3rd February 2025<br><a href="https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/family-pathfinder-court-expansion-welcome.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/family-pathfinder-court-expansion-welcome.html</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Template Child Impact Report<br><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2025/04/CIR-template-current-NW-version-November-2023.docx" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2025/04/CIR-template-current-NW-version-November-2023.docx</a><br></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden Chambers has welcomed a children’s law silk to its 38-strong family team as part of its strategy of continued expansion</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Simon Bickler KC, who was called to the bar 1988 and took silk in 2011, joins from Leeds-based St Pauls Chambers where he was previously Head of Chambers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge sitting in family law in 2019, his practice encompasses all aspects of children’s law including abduction, private and public law.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Simon’s specialisms include child arrangement disputes, serious and non-accidental injuries and child fatalities, sexual abuse allegations alongside fabricated and induced illness and child relocation proceedings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>His clients include local authorities, parents, children’s guardians, extended family, foster carers and prospective adopters.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Commenting on his new tenancy, Simon said: “I’m pleased to join Parklane Plowden’s family team, which has a long-established reputation for its progressive outlook and expertise in both private and public law proceedings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The set has seen significant growth and I look forward to working with like-minded colleagues who support a broad range of clients in proceedings and are committed to delivering positive outcomes.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden senior practice director, Stephen Render, commented: “Simon is a highly experienced, renowned silk whose additional judicial role makes him a valuable asset to our expanding family team.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“He has handled a range of complex cases which means he is well positioned to support clients during proceedings which are often accompanied by high-levels of emotion.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Please click <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/simon-bickler-kc/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a> to access Simon Bickler KC's profile. </em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are pleased to share that Parklane Plowden family pupil, Avaia Williams, has recently published an article in the Family Law Journal (February 2025).</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In this piece, Avaia provides insight into the High Court decision in Re G, where the court examined whether parental consent can authorise nasogastric feeding (and any necessary restraint) of a 12-year-old girl with anorexia nervosa who refused treatment. Central to the article is the tension between, on the one hand, established case law and parental responsibility, and, on the other, the paramount importance of the child’s rights and autonomy. Avaia discusses how the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice, now considered outdated, complicates these cases and leaves ambiguity about the proper legal framework.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The spillover of this reasoning into cases like Re G, where G's resistance to treatment was known, places the child's rights at the bottom of the hierarchy, effectively replacing their voice with parental consent shaped by medical advice. This is particularly concerning when the child is not capable of articulating their opposition or consent, further marginalising their autonomy.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In addressing the court’s ruling that a parent can consent to treatment, even that which is repeatedly “invasive and traumatic” and will amount to a deprivation of liberty, the article questions whether the welfare principle and a child’s wishes truly retain their prominence when a child’s competence is in doubt. Avaia highlights the potential need for more robust judicial oversight:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“Going forward, notwithstanding the discussion in Re G, Trusts would be benefited by issuing cases to ensure proper oversight, particularly given there are going to be such circumstances where it is not clearly in the best interests of the child to restrain and enforce treatment. Until such a time as a revised Code is produced, best practice should ensure that the welfare principle is upheld, and that the child's voice (even if apparently ascertainable through parents) is properly heard.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For further details on Re G’s implications for both families and practitioners, you can read Avaia’s full article in Family Law Journal (February 2025 issue) <a href="https://plus.lexis.com/uk/document/?pdmfid=1001073&amp;crid=edb0238e-ea5f-4931-8e98-587e4b38ab49&amp;pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials-uk%2Furn:contentItem:6F9D-F753-RTC9-P43B-00000-00&amp;pdcontentcomponentid=228780&amp;pdteaserkey=&amp;pdislpamode=false&amp;pddocumentnumber=1&amp;pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&amp;ecomp=5t5k&amp;earg=sr0&amp;prid=7cd62a4a-4ef6-4ca3-8b80-e894e703a355" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Avaia</a> will be taking instructions in all areas of children law and Court of Protection (Health &amp; Welfare) from 07 April 2025.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Listen to Parklane Plowden’s latest PLP Podcast – Exploring non-court dispute resolution methods in family cases</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden family barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/giorgia-sessi/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Giorgia Sessi</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/daniel-pitt/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Daniel Pitt</a> and head of the Family team <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/julia-nelson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Julia Nelson</a> explore non-court based dispute resolution methods, something which practitioners now have to advise clients to engage in meaningfully throughout cases. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Together they explore a range of non-court dispute resolution methods, including private financial dispute resolution (FDR) and arbitration as well as looking ahead to how AI is impacting the work of family lawyers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Key questions covered include why legal practitioners should recommend a private FDR or arbitration, what cases they are most suited for and what impact the speed and flexibility has compared to court-based hearings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>They also discuss how to maximise the effectiveness of private FDRs alongside issues such as cost implications, judge selection, how to handle parties who back out or who do not want to settle and ensuring neutrality.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Listen to the podcast below.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Avaia Williams (Pupil) and Deborah Shield review the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in the case of <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/214" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Re M (A Child) (Placement Order)</em> [2025] EWCA Civ 214</a>. A decision concerning the placement options for a young boy, M, where the court was asked to grapple with placing the child for adoption or delaying proceedings and determination to support a possible family placement abroad.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The judgment, given by Lady Justice King, is infused with the concept that delay is prejudicial to a child, and that there comes a point within proceedings where ‘enough is enough’ and the nettle must be grasped.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Background</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>M was born during existing care proceedings relating to the parents other children. M was initially placed with the mother under an Interim Care Order, however, following breaches of the safety plan, M was placed into foster care.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The mother put forward M’s aunt and uncle, who lived in Pakistan, as alternative carers. These alternative carers were supported by the Local Authority until August 2024, at which point, the Local Authority moved to a plan of adoption within the UK.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>By the time of the final hearing in October, a positive Children and Families Across Boarders (“CFAB”) assessment had been completed of the aunt and uncle. This assessment raised some concerns and uncertainties, such as the level of education that would be available to M and the impact on the family unit in Pakistan given the uncle may need to work extended hours and abroad. That being said, the assessment recommended the aunt and uncle as:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“suitable to be considered to care for the children (sic) if they are provided with financial support.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>&nbsp;Given the positive CFAB assessment, the aunt and uncle sought an adjournment at the final hearing to allow a full assessment of them to be carried out within the UK (as would be required to affect such a placement abroad). This was refused by the court, and a Placement Order was made. The judge’s reasoning was encapsulated by the placement with the aunt and uncle being “fraught with uncertainties”, at [41] the Court of Appeal quoted the judges reasoning that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“…there is sadly no clear and confirmed timescale for the assessment to be completed, and no guarantee that it will be positive (though I accept, there are grounds for optimism that it would be based on the CFAB assessment). [M] has no existing relationship with the Aunt and Uncle (although they have seen him over video calls in the first few weeks of his life, he does not know them, and they speak a different language</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>I have balanced these very real and in my judgment legitimate concerns with the potential positives in the court sanctioning delay for assessment to take place, because, if positive, it would enable [M] to be placed with an extended family member, in a cultural and religious match, with the possibility for ongoing relationship (even if limited) with his parents and other family members.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Grounds of Appeal</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The aunt and uncle appealed on five grounds, that the judge was wrong to:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“i) Accept that Accept that a plan to place M with his aunt and uncle was “fraught with uncertainties”.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>ii) Conclude that it would be akin to 6–12 months before a successful placement could be achieved if an assessment of the aunt and uncle were positive.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>iii) Conclude that there was a real possibility that the assessment would be negative.&nbsp;</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>iv) Conclude that an adjournment was not within M’s reasonable timescales for achieving a permanent placement absent direct evidence as to timescales to place M for adoption.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>v) Fail to consider if a “robust and focused timescale” could have been imposed to lead to an expeditious resolution of proceedings following further assessment of the aunt and uncle.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In submissions, Teertha Gupta KC, focused on the third and fifth grounds of appeal, having conceded there were clear uncertainties with the plan and that the assessment for 6-12 months was something the judge could have reasonably assessed.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Ground iii</span></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>With respect to ground iii, the Court stated at [53]</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“That there was a real possibility that the assessment might fail was in my judgment an inevitable consequence of the uncertainty inherent in the whole complicated plan; for example, it may simply not have been viable because the funding was no longer available from the cash-poor local authority or the applications for visas may be refused. M may himself have found the introduction to his aunt and uncle with the language barrier just too difficult and, as had been identified by Ms Rafiq, there were issues with schools and the home conditions. These were all potential stumbling blocks. For my part I can see that there was also a significant risk that the demands on the aunt and uncle might be simply too great. Should the matter have been adjourned then, providing they managed to obtain visas, the family would have relocated to a strange country for an unspecified period of time for assessment and, if successful, the uncle would then return to Pakistan with the two older (but by no means grown up) children. Once home they would have to manage without their primary carer while their father worked punishingly long hours, potentially for many months, whilst court proceedings took their course in both the UK and Pakistan, proceedings which would be necessary in order to provide essential protection for M’s position in Pakistan.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>It was clear that the judge did consider the positives within the CFAB assessment, notably the cultural match and a family placement, however, drawing on <em><u>Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents Competing Claims)</u></em> [2016] EWCA Civ 793, the Court reaffirmed at [55] that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“As in any case where it is hoped that a family placement can be achieved it is important, as was perhaps not recognised until too late in this case, that there is no presumption or right for a child to be brought up by a member of his or her natural family.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On ground iii, the court concluded at [56] that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“Ultimately the judge concluded that M’s welfare demanded that he be placed for adoption and that when she performed a proportionality cross check she said she was “satisfied that, despite its draconian nature and lifelong consequences, adoption is a necessary and proportionate interference – in short, nothing else will do”.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Ground v</span></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As to ground v, it was submitted by Teertha Gupta KC, that, given the delay already in place, there was no requirement for the court to now “bring down the guillotine” and that an extension should be granted under s.32(5) Children Act 1989. The Court relied on Sir James Munby’s assessment in Re S (a child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [2015] 1 WLR 925, where the then President held at [34] of that judgment that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“I repeat, because the point is so important, that in no case can an extension beyond 26 weeks be authorised unless it is "necessary" to enable the court to resolve the proceedings "justly". Only the imperative demands of justice – fair process – or of the child's welfare will suffice…”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Further, the Court drew on the judgment of Peter Jackson LJ in Re S-L (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 1571, where the Court of Appeal in that case, at [12], decided that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“In cases involving children, there can sometimes be good reasons for adjourning a final decision in order to obtain necessary information. The overriding obligation is to deal with the case justly, but there is a trade-off between the need for information and the presumptive prejudice to the child of delay […] public law proceedings are subject to a statutory timetabling imperative. Section 32(1)(a) provides that the court must draw up a timetable for disposing of the application without delay and in any event within 26 weeks; subsection 32(5) allows an extension only where the court considers it necessary to enable the proceedings to be resolved justly.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Court considered the crucial age at which M now was. M was entering critical phases for developing his attachments.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On ground v, the court concluded at [64] that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“…the judge’s careful and sympathetic analysis of the application for an adjournment for further assessments of the aunt and uncle cannot be faulted and in my judgment she reached the right decision given the uncertainties inherent in the proposed plan for placement in Pakistan and the urgency of achieving permanency for M.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Comment</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Tt has been 12 years since the Supreme Court gave the landmark ruling in <em><u>Re B (A Child)</u></em> [2013] UKSC 33, and the Court of Appeal gave guidance in <em><u>Re B-S (Children)</u></em> [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. It was hoped that the Court of Appeal may have taken this opportunity to provide further guidance on the concept of “nothing else will do” given this nebulous concept has caused much debate and concern for practitioners across the board.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The concept of “nothing else will do” creates a paradox when paired with a clear statutory time-limit of 26-weeks for resolving children proceedings. How can it be said, on the purely factual basis in this case, and countless others, that nothing else will do for this child. Whilst the judge was evidently right to conclude that the assessment and placement with the aunt and uncle was an uncertain placement, it is a comment which can be applied to every placement that results from care proceedings, whether adoption or otherwise.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>What is clear, is that this child had a clear opportunity to be placed within his family unit. Notwithstanding the decision of the Court of Appeal, and previous decisions, that there is no ‘right’ to such a family placement, it is incontestable that a family placement has inherent benefits and is the preferred outcome where that placement is safe (were this not the case, Local Authorities would have no duty to assess connected carers). So, whilst the assessment of the aunt and uncle was not clear, it was optimistic and was a viable way forward. As such, on a literal interpretation, it could not be said that “nothing else will do” but placing M for adoption.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>It is clear that “nothing else will do” comes with several caveats such that the actual rule, or at least how it is applied in courts, appears to be more akin to “nothing else will reasonably or realistically do, given the welfare needs of the child”. As the Court of Appeal in Re M have made clear, delay, especially where 26-weeks has been surpassed, will clearly require that any alternative plan be more and more realistic and more and&nbsp; more reasonable than it otherwise may have to be at the start of proceedings (this being encapsulated by the Local Authorities approach here).</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>What can be learned from this case, is the need for Local Authorities, and those representing parents, to be proactive in identifying and assessing potential kinship carers at the earliest possible stage of proceedings. ‘Front-loading’ these assessments can help avoid the late emergence of an overseas relative or other connected person, which often places the court in the difficult position of choosing between exploring a potentially appropriate kinship placement and meeting strict statutory deadlines. By initiating thorough kinship assessments at the outset, local authorities not only ensure transparency and fairness but also mitigate the risk of children lingering in uncertain temporary arrangements. From the parental perspective, practitioners should advise parents on the importance of promptly disclosing potential family carers and providing all necessary details as soon as possible, thus offering a more realistic chance of success for kinship placements if they are viable.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A clear problem in practice is the misunderstanding of twin tracking by a) the parents; and b) the prospective carers; it must be made abundantly clear to those involved in proceedings, that suggesting such connected carers in no way takes away from the assessment of parents or the court dealing with proceedings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Local authorities and practitioners acting for parents must collaborate to address matters such as visa applications, relocation logistics, funding arrangements, and compliance with both UK and foreign legal systems at an early stage. Where an international assessment is a serious possibility, forward planning, including formal engagement with international bodies like CFAB and seeking specialist advice, should form part of the initial case strategy, ensuring clarity around timelines, financial support, and the child’s specific educational or medical needs if placed overseas. It appears that, in such cases, the recommendations made by the Public Law Working Group in respect of international adoption may offer valuable steering.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Deborah Shield, led by Teertha Gupta KC, acted for the aunt and uncle in the Court of Appeal.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->