A-T (Children)

On an appeal from the exercise of a judge’s discretion, the Court of Appeal reviews the decision rather than exercising the discretion afresh. Intervention is justified only where relevant matters were overlooked or the conclusion was plainly wrong. Section 33(7)(b) of the Children Act 1989 gives jurisdiction to grant leave to remove a child from the United Kingdom while a care order is in force. The discretion must be exercised by weighing the relevant risks and benefits.

Four children were subject to interim care orders in ongoing public law proceedings. The local authority had agreed that they should return home pending preparation for a final hearing. On the parents’ effectively without-notice application, the county court granted leave for a two-week visit to Morocco, subject to conditions concerning timing, accommodation, travel documents and undertakings.

The local authority appealed, arguing that the order was outside the court’s jurisdiction and plainly wrong because removal would prevent essential monitoring and created a risk of flight. The central issue was whether the judge’s exercise of discretion could properly be disturbed.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Thorpe, with Mr Justice Morland agreeing, dismissed the appeal. The order was varied so that paragraph 6(c) required return ferry tickets instead of return air tickets.
2. Jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction under section 33(7)(b) of the Children Act 1989. While a care order is in force, removal of the child from the United Kingdom requires either written consent from every person with parental responsibility or the court’s leave.
3. Appellate review. The Court of Appeal was reviewing the county court judge’s discretion, not exercising the discretion afresh. The relevant question was whether the judge had carefully weighed the competing considerations, explained the conclusion fully, and reached a conclusion that was not plainly wrong.
4. Application. The judge had considered the loss of schooling, the local authority’s loss of monitoring and protective control, the risk of flight, the mother’s settled circumstances and benefits in this jurisdiction, Morocco’s non-Convention status and developing international engagement, and the importance of Eid celebrations and family contact. The possibility that the judge might ultimately be wrong, or that another judge might have taken a more cautious approach, did not justify intervention.
5. Costs. There was no order for costs, save that the respondent’s costs were to be assessed on a public funding basis.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Portsmouth County Court, the appeal was dismissed. The order was varied so that paragraph 6(c) required return ferry tickets instead of return air tickets.
• Portsmouth County Court: Her Honour Judge Bonvin granted the parents leave to remove the children from the jurisdiction for a maximum of two weeks to Morocco, subject to conditions.