C (A Child), Re

Pending a full welfare investigation, an interim residence decision must be governed by the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. The interim court’s task is to hold the ring and make arrangements without prejudicing the final decision. Permission to appeal an interim order should be refused where the proposed appeal would displace an imminent full hearing and cause further delay, particularly where no arguable Convention violation is established on the wider assessment of the parties’ and child’s rights.

The father applied in person for permission to appeal an interim residence order made by His Honour Judge Krikler in the Willesden County Court on 6 December 2000. The order placed the parties’ almost eleven-year-old daughter with the mother pending a Court Welfare Officer’s report and a full hearing, while providing the father with regular daytime contact. The father complained that he had been refused an adjournment to obtain representation and that the procedure violated his rights under the European Convention. The central issue was whether permission should be granted in circumstances where the interim order was expressed to be without prejudice and a full welfare hearing was expected shortly.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.

2. An interim residence decision pending a full investigation must be governed by the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. The judge was entitled to focus on protecting the child from the emotional climate generated by the dispute and to treat the interim arrangement as temporary and without prejudice to the final decision.

3. The Court of Appeal considered the alleged inequality of arms and Convention violation in the context of all affected interests. Regard had to be paid not only to the father’s position, but also to the mother’s right to have her application determined and, above all, to the child’s right to a judgment and order placing her welfare and protection unquestionably first. On that wider view, it was impossible to conclude that a human-rights violation had been established.

4. The appropriate course was a full merits hearing assisted by the Court Welfare Officer’s report and, if possible, legal representation for both parties. Granting permission would cause the imminent hearing to be lost, and appellate proceedings would produce delay even if a rehearing were eventually ordered. The interim order therefore provided no sufficient basis for permission to appeal.

5. The judge observed that the contact arrangements arguably should have included staying contact with the father. That observation did not alter the refusal of permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 12 March 2001, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed; [2001] EWCA Civ 479.
• Willesden County Court: His Honour Judge Krikler made an interim residence order on 6 December 2000, placing the child with the mother pending a welfare investigation and full hearing.