The topic of Part 25 applications might not be making headlines as the most sensational area, yet its significance cannot be understated, especially in light of a recent ruling from the Court of Appeal. This decision underscores the vital necessity of adhering to procedural and statutory criteria in Part 25 applications, a lesson learned from a case overseen by a Circuit Judge at Canterbury County Court.
The case in question involved a self-represented father appealing a directive from the Tier 1 Family Court, which ordered him to undergo a psychological assessment. This directive was issued without a formal Part 25 application and failed to consider the required criteria, a move later deemed ‘unlawful’ by the Court of Appeal in Re C (A Child) (Procedural Requirements of a Part 25 Application) (2015) EWCA Civ 539.
Though it might not be the most exhilarating of subjects, the management of such cases is a frequent puzzle that family law practitioners, whether in private or public sectors, must solve.
The Law and Its Authorities
Where do we begin our understanding of Part 25 applications? Primarily, the courts require the finest evidence to proceed, especially in care proceedings. This principle was highlighted in Re B (A Child) Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria (2013) UKSC 33, where the Supreme Court laid out the rigorous demands needed in these cases. From ensuring the exploration of alternative solutions to confirming no other practical support is available before making an adoption order, the emphasis is on thoroughness and necessity.
Additionally, the need for reliable expert evidence is crucial for the courts to scrutinise care plans and consider all available options, a point further elaborated in Re B-S (Children) (2013) EWCA Civ 1146. Here, the Court of Appeal stressed the importance of evidence-based expert opinion focused on the specifics of each case.
Family Procedure Rules
Under Rule 25 of the FPR (2010) 25.4(3), court permission for expert evidence is contingent upon its necessity to resolve proceedings justly. This amendment, included in the Children and Families Act 2014, emphasizes various factors: the impact on children’s welfare, available expert evidence, cost, and effect on case timelines, among others.
Yet, what’s often overlooked is the overriding objective of the FPR, a crucial component in achieving fairness and equality in these applications. This objective encompasses the expeditious and fair handling of cases, ensuring proportionality, equal footing for all parties, cost-saving, and appropriate resource allocation.
Case Law Perspectives
Re TG (Care Proceedings: Case Management: Expert evidence) (2013) EWCA Civ 5 highlighted the judge’s role in considering all case circumstances when admitting expert evidence. The nature of the expert’s discipline, the case context, and the stakes involved are all critical factors. Furthermore, in Re B (A Child) (2013) UKSC 33, the Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of the highest level of evidence in care cases, aligning with Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR.
Emphasising the ECHR
Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, protecting the rights to a fair hearing and to family life, are pivotal in family law cases. As highlighted in Re Z (A Child: Independent Social Work Assessment) (2014) EWHC 729 and Re S (Children) (2014) EWCA Civ 135, these articles ensure the fairness and robustness of parental assessments, a critical piece of the evidential puzzle.
In summary, Part 25 applications in children and family law are intricate, demanding a meticulous approach that balances the need for expert evidence with the principles of justice and the best interest of the child. As legal practitioners, our understanding and application of these rules play a vital role in navigating the complexities of family law.