E (A Child), Re

On an application for permission to appeal in care proceedings, the appellate court should not interfere where the judge reached conclusions reasonably open on the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. An immediate residence order may properly be refused where the child’s emotional needs require continued stability and a carefully planned rehabilitation programme. An unusual contact order may be left under review where further information and practical efforts are needed to assess whether it remains appropriate. Mediation may be an important element of a care plan where conflict between a parent and local authority obstructs communication and contact.

The father sought an extension of time and permission to appeal against a county court order placing his ten-year-old daughter in the care of the local authority. The order left contact with both parents to the local authority’s discretion and prohibited further applications concerning the child without the court’s leave for 12 months.

The central issues were whether the care order and refusal of an immediate residence order were properly made, and whether the arrangements for contact and mediation required appellate intervention. The application was initially adjourned to permit further work on contact and mediation, and returned with additional information before the Court of Appeal.

1. Care order and immediate residence. There was no prospect of an appeal succeeding against the care order. The judge’s findings that the child was suffering significant harm attributable to inadequate care by both parents, and was likely to suffer significant harm if removed from her foster placement, were conclusions clearly open to her on the evidence. She had considered the case carefully and applied the correct legal principles.
2. The father’s ability to provide physical care did not require an immediate residence order. The child had serious emotional and psychological difficulties and required stability, therapeutic support and a carefully planned move. The care plan contemplated rehabilitation and eventual reunification, subject to the father developing a better understanding of the child’s needs and co-operating constructively with professionals.
3. Contact and adjournment. The application concerning the remaining aspects of the order was adjourned for three months. The court considered it premature to determine whether the unusual contact order was appropriate until further attempts had been made to re-establish regular and reliable contact and to assess progress.
4. Mediation between the father and local authority was a crucial part of the care plan because improved communication was necessary to support contact. Following Re W and B, it was an item suitable for special prominence under the relevant court procedures. Mediation and the father’s work to understand the child’s needs were distinct matters, although both were directed towards rehabilitation.
5. The direction protecting the child from knowledge of the application was continued. The application was adjourned on the stated terms, with the child’s interests taking priority.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for an extension of time and permission to appeal from the Bristol County Court order of 11 December 2000 was partly addressed. There was no prospect of an appeal against the care order, but the remaining application was adjourned for three months to allow further progress on contact and mediation.
• Bristol County Court: Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith made a care order, left contact with both parents to the local authority’s discretion, and made an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.