P (A Child), Re

An appellate court should rarely interfere with a short-duration interim order made by the trial court. Intervention requires a fairly exceptional irregularity. In deciding interim contact, the court must balance the child’s welfare need for good-quality, continuing contact against the risks of the proposed arrangement. A professional contact centre is not necessarily required where it becomes unavailable or materially reduces contact. Carefully scrutinised family supervision may be an adequate alternative where supervisors understand the risks and the arrangement protects the child.

The parents disputed interim contact between the mother and their young child after an alleged incident led to child-protection procedures, the child being placed in the father’s care, and the mother being charged with attempted murder. Contact had initially been limited to supervised sessions at the Accord Centre. When the centre became unavailable over Christmas and later reduced session lengths, Miss Recorder Ball Q.C. ordered three limited home visits supervised by family or friends. The father appealed. The central issue was whether the recorder had erred in balancing the child’s need for continuing contact against the risks, and whether appellate intervention was justified.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Thorpe delivered the first judgment, with the President agreeing.

1. An appellate court should rarely interfere with a short-duration interim order made by the trial court. Some fairly exceptional irregularity is required before intervention is justified.
2. The recorder had to balance the detriment to the child of restricting good-quality, continuing contact against the risks involved in transferring supervision from a professional contact centre to a family home. Her preference for professional supervision, if available, did not make the alternative arrangement illogical.
3. The recorder had approached the discretionary decision conscientiously. She heard each proposed supervisor, tested their understanding of the seriousness of the responsibility, and required supervision arrangements designed to ensure that an adult remained present or close by. The order was also limited in duration and subject to review.
4. The President emphasised that the allegation made the risk assessment particularly serious, but the danger identified was the mother being alone with the child. The safeguards therefore addressed the relevant risk while preserving the child’s important relationship with the mother.

Additional evidence showed that the contact had proceeded as contemplated. The order included leave to adduce that evidence, removal of the stay, extension of the contact periods from two hours to three, and payment of the appeal costs by the appellant.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 31 January 2001, dismissed the father’s appeal against the interim contact order. [2001] EWCA Civ 147
• Principal Registry of the Family Division: Miss Recorder Ball Q.C. made an interim order on 18 December permitting three limited home visits supervised by family or friends, pending review.