C (A Child)

Short-term interim orders pending fuller investigation attract a very generous margin of judgment. The relevant question is whether the order was plainly wrong or outside the reasonable ambit available to the trial judge, not whether the appellate judge would have made a different order. The absence of an elaborate welfare-checklist analysis does not by itself invalidate such an order. Nor does reliance on grandparents for childcare, where the judge understood the arrangements and was satisfied that the child was properly cared for. Contact terms may be upheld if they remain within the reasonable range, even if more generous contact would have been preferred. Permission may be refused where further appellate review is unjustified.

The mother applied for a residence order concerning the parties’ 15-month-old child after the parents separated. The father retained the child and was granted interim residence by His Honour Judge Hutton in the Gloucester County Court on 11 April 2001. The order provided for alternate-weekend staying contact with the mother, a court welfare officer’s report and a directions hearing.

The mother challenged the order, arguing that the judge had failed to address the welfare checklist, had overlooked the father’s reliance on his parents for childcare, had failed to provide sufficient contact and had not arranged a sufficiently prompt final hearing. The central issue was whether the interim order fell outside the generous range of judgment available to a trial judge pending fuller investigation.

Lord Justice Thorpe refused the application for permission to appeal.

1. The appellate question was not whether Thorpe LJ would have made the same interim order. Although he would have preferred interim residence with the mother, more extensive contact and a swifter hearing, the relevant question was whether the order fell outside the very generous ambit available to a trial judge making a short-term holding order.
2. The absence of an elaborated welfare-checklist analysis did not establish an error of law. Interim orders are frequently made without that degree of elaboration. The judge had understood the parties’ positions and had concluded that the child was properly cared for by the father and paternal grandparents.
3. The fact that the father delegated aspects of childcare to his parents, while the mother was available as a full-time carer, did not make the order plainly wrong. The judge was entitled to conclude that the existing arrangements should continue in the short term pending fuller investigation.
4. The contact arrangements were less generous than Thorpe LJ would have ordered, but remained within the range of reasonable outcomes. Alternate-weekend staying contact, including a full weekend, was sufficient to prevent the order being plainly unreasonable.
5. The case required urgent case management. Those acting for the mother were urged to obtain a final hearing date in late July and, if Gloucester could not accommodate the hearing, to consider another venue within the same court group. The formal order was: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the interim order was refused.
• Gloucester County Court: On 11 April 2001, His Honour Judge Hutton ordered interim residence with the father, alternate-weekend staying contact with the mother, a court welfare officer’s report and a directions hearing.