Re SK  EWHC 3289 (Fam)
Applications by mother in the course of proceedings concerning the best interests of a vulnerable adult, SK. Applications refused.
There were two applications under consideration in this judgment: i) an application by SK's elderly mother for SK to return home to live with the mother in advance of the final hearing and; ii) a request for a second report from a social worker.
On the first application, Sumner J reviewed the reports of the social workers and a psychiatrist. All of them opposed any trial period of cohabiting with the mother because of SK's history of mental illness, the history of conflict within the family, the mother's inadequate housing and doubts as to whether the mother could cope with the demands, even with further assistance from the LA.
The second application was, initially, for a written report. Counsel for the mother argued that the report on the family, by a single social worker appointed by the parties, was unfair and that an alternative view of the family was certainly possible. Sumner J, in refusing the application, contrasted the principles in recent medical report cases where a second medical report was allowed. He elicited the principles governing the granting of a second report in non-medical cases in para 56 of this judgment and concludes that no second report is necessary as the original report, though not above challenge, was not fundamentally flawed and that, unlike a medical report, does not require a further report to enable it to be challenged effectively in court.
See also the judgment from the final hearing: London Borough of Ealing v KS  EWHC 636 (Fam).
Family Law Week (see link below) have kindly agreed for the above case summary to be used on this page.
K (Local Authority: Expert Evidence)
 2 FLR 707Not on Bailii!,  Fam Law 632