C (A Child), Re

Where the circumstances of a care case remain in substantial flux, the court should not make a final care order on foundations liable to change before the child’s future can be properly assessed. Material developments between the announcement of an order and the delivery of reasons may require the position to be reopened. The appellate court should not ordinarily determine a long-term residence arrangement where that assessment is properly for the trial court. It may substitute an interim care order, subject to review, while safeguarding the child’s family relationships through appropriate contact arrangements.

The local authority obtained a final care order for S, aged eight, in the Sheffield County Court. The order was announced on 26 January 2001, with reasons reserved. Before the reasons were given, the authority changed its plan from placing S in Sheffield to placing her in Manchester. Further expert evidence also supported the possibility that S’s younger brother, R, would return to the care of the family.

The mother and maternal grandfather appealed. They argued that the judge had acted prematurely, failed to reconsider the order in light of the intervening developments, and made a disproportionate intervention under the Human Rights Act. The central issues were whether the final order should stand and what order should replace it.

1. Appeal allowed. The final care order made on 26 January 2001 was set aside and replaced by an interim care order.
2. Per Lord Justice Thorpe, the case had undergone too much change for a final care order to be safely made. The changes in the proposed placement of S and the developing possibility of R’s return to the family, taken together, undermined the foundations of the order. The judge should therefore have reconsidered the position when those developments became known.
3. The traditional distinction between final and interim care orders, associated with Re L, was noted as being under review. The court nevertheless considered that, even on the existing authorities, the intervening developments made the final order unsustainable.
4. The Court of Appeal declined to make an interim residence order in favour of the maternal grandfather or his partner. Whether shared care could safely be resumed required assessment by the trial court, including consideration of the support available and the effect on the plan for R.
5. The interim care order was to be reviewed monthly. During the interim period, the court’s jurisdiction included safeguarding S’s relationship with her mother and maternal grandfather by appropriate contact, including unsupervised, visiting and staying contact. Detailed contact arrangements were to be agreed or determined promptly, with substantive management returned to the county court.
6. The Human Rights Act argument was not determined because the appeal succeeded on the premature and unstable basis of the final care order.

• Sheffield County Court: His Honour Judge Bartfield made a final care order in respect of S on 26 January 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The final care order was discharged and replaced with an interim care order. The case was directed to be heard before a county court judge as soon as possible and, in any event, before the school half term.