K (A Child), Re

A restriction under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 may be imposed where repeated applications are meritless or potentially disruptive, provided the judge applies the correct principles and stays within the generous ambit of discretion. The order is exceptional or draconian, but its severity does not make it unlawful. A local authority exercising parental responsibility under a care order may determine where a child lives. However, where the child’s address is relevant to a properly constituted contact application under section 34, the authority may be required to disclose it to the court. Any decision whether to disclose the address must place the child’s best interests first. Appellate intervention is justified only where the decision is plainly wrong or falls outside the permissible range.

The applicant, the mother of a child subject to a care order, sought permission to appeal decisions concerning discharge of the care order, contact and disclosure of her son’s address. Earlier orders had provided supervised or otherwise controlled contact, but she had not visited the child since June 2000 and had repeatedly failed to co-operate with the local authority.

Mr Justice Sumner refused to discharge the care order and declined to vary the existing contact arrangements. Her Honour Judge Anwyl refused disclosure of the child’s foster placement address and made a three-year restriction under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. The central issues were whether those decisions disclosed an arguable error of principle or an impermissible exercise of discretion, and whether the asserted Convention rights had been infringed.

1. Applications dismissed. There was no realistic prospect of successfully challenging the refusal to discharge the care order. The mother’s failure to use the available contact arrangements and her lack of co-operation were a proper basis for the judge’s decision on the material before him.
2. The refusal to make a further contact order did not vary the existing contact order. The court understood the practical difficulty created by the mother’s refusal to see the child except on her own terms, and found no error in declining to make a fresh order.
3. The local authority had power under the care order and the parental responsibility accompanying it to determine where the child should live. Lord Justice Ward expressed the preliminary view that this did not necessarily mean that the authority could withhold the address from the court where disclosure arose in a contact application properly before it under section 34 of the Children Act 1989. The point was not finally decided and permission to appeal on it was refused.
4. Her Honour Judge Anwyl had, however, properly exercised the disclosure discretion. The child was immature, had learning difficulties, had not seen his mother for over a year, and was vulnerable in a recently established placement. There were grave concerns that disclosure would disrupt the placement. The decision placed the child’s best interests first and was not plainly wrong.
5. The three-year section 91(14) restriction was draconian, but was within the judge’s discretion. The repeated applications, their lack of merit, their potential disruption to the child, and the time and cost imposed on the local authority justified a period of cooling-off. The judge applied the correct principles and her decision fell within the generous ambit within which reasonable judges could disagree.
6. The complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights disclosed no arguable breach on the material before the court. The care order was made after due process, the child had been represented by a guardian ad litem and the Official Solicitor, and there was no evidential basis for the complaints concerning treatment or discrimination.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — earlier appeals concerning the care order and contact were dismissed or resolved by directions. The present applications for permission to appeal the decisions of Mr Justice Sumner and Her Honour Judge Anwyl were dismissed.