T (Interim Care Order: Arrangements for Contact), Re

The judge's direction for interim direct contact was wrong because he failed to conduct a proper welfare analysis, did not consider the child's emotional needs or the risks of harm, and treated a recital as an enforceable order without proper basis. The decision was fundamentally flawed and could not stand.

Parties: Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Child (by the Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 July 2024
Procedural Posture: Appeal (family/public Law) / Appeal From Interim Case Management Order in Ongoing Care Proceedings
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Interim Care Orders, Contact Arrangements, Welfare Principle, Section 34 Children Act 1989, Recitals in Orders

Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Contact Arrangements Welfare Principle Section 34 Children Act 1989 Recitals in Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Child (by the Children’s Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/public Law) / Appeal From Interim Case Management Order in Ongoing Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

1 Whether the judge failed to conduct a child-focused welfare review before ordering direct contact
2 Whether the judge erred in treating a recital as an enforceable order
3 Whether the judge failed to properly consider the child's distress and the Local Authority's plan for further assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

The relevant recitals in the 22 March 2024 order relating to contact are set aside.
The case is remitted for urgent consideration of interim contact and case management to HHJ Parker.