Held, application refused. FPR 2010 r 25.43 and the established authorities made it exceptionally clear that the test for determining whether permission was to be given for the inclusion of expert evidence was whether it was “necessary” for the resolution of the proceedings. It was not unusual for parents in care proceedings to struggle to absorb information, to concentrate throughout meetings and hearings or to understand the proceedings but the solution to that problem was not, in the majority of cases, to undertake cognitive assessments and appoint intermediaries. It was for all the professionals involved, including lawyers and judges, to bear closely in mind the need to use simple language, avoid jargon and, where appropriate, check that a litigant had understood what was being said. An application under FPR Pt 25 for a psychological or cognitive assessment was to be accompanied by proper evidence which explained why the case went beyond the standard difficulties faced by many parents in care proceedings, explaining why the parent’s needs could not be properly managed by careful use of language and the professionals taking the time to explain matters in an appropriate manner and addressing why such an assessment was necessary rather than just something that would be “nice to have”. When deciding whether to allow an application for a psychologist to carry out a cognitive assessment it was critical to be mindful of the existence of the Advocates Gateway and the requirement for all those working in that part of the justice system to be familiar with it and apply its principles as well as being sensitive to the needs of the parents. It was only appropriate to order a psychological assessment relevant to the court process if the approach in the Advocates Gateway was plainly insufficient. Here, the application did not come close to meeting the test of “necessary to resolve the proceedings”, and it was to be refused and ought never to have been made. Such applications, and a misconceived “belt and braces” approach by solicitors or counsel, wasted considerable resources not just in the courts but also for the local authorities and CAFCASS and it was important that the applications were not granted without the court properly addressing the correct test (paras 10, 18–20, 21, 22, 23–27).

Per curiam. Guardians, and the children’s solicitors, play an important role in care proceedings in ensuring that the interests of the child are met by minimising delay and maximising the efficient use of resources, in particular by assisting the court to “Make Cases Smaller” (see the President of the Family Division’s The Road Ahead). If it is clear to the guardian and the child’s solicitor that an application should be refused, then they should make that clear to the court rather than, as they had in the present case, stating that they were “neutral” on the application (para 17).