J (A Child)

In care proceedings, a local authority should keep parent-child contact under constant review and develop it as far as possible pending the final hearing, while acting cautiously and considering the burden on the child. A close relationship and the child’s wish for more contact remain important, even where contact has caused upset and the parent has behaved unpredictably. Separation does not necessarily remove the burden on the child. The court may direct an independent psychiatric assessment of both parent and child where up-to-date mental-state evidence is necessary and the child’s expressed views raise questions about maturity or instructions. Any further assessment must not jeopardise the care timetable.

The mother sought permission to appeal against orders made in care proceedings concerning her ten-and-a-half-year-old son. The orders included an interim care order, the fixing of a final hearing, and refusal of increased contact. The child had been accommodated after a fire, incidents involving the mother, and her admission to hospital with bipolar affective disorder.

Her Honour Judge Mitchell dismissed the mother’s appeal and refused increased contact. The mother renewed her application in the Court of Appeal. By then, the interim orders were spent, but contact remained limited and the mother’s mental state, the child’s views, and the guardian’s assessment raised further issues. The central questions were whether contact should be developed pending the final hearing and whether an independent psychiatric assessment should be directed.

1. Disposition. Lady Justice Hale granted permission to appeal on the contact issue and treated the hearing as the appeal. The challenge to the interim care orders was rejected as spent and supported by sufficient evidence. No defined contact order was made. An independent psychiatric assessment was directed.
2. Contact. The local authority had acted cautiously, but should continue to keep contact under constant review and improve it as far as possible pending the final hearing. The child’s strong relationship with his mother and wish for substantially more contact were important considerations. Although contact could upset him, the burden of the family situation existed in any event and would not necessarily be removed by continued separation. The local authority could impose proper conditions, and the mother was expected to comply with them and behave appropriately during contact.
3. Assessment. An independent psychiatric assessment was justified by the need for an up-to-date assessment of the mother’s mental state, concerns about the child’s mental state, and the conflict between the child’s expressed views and the guardian’s assessment of his best interests. The child should be seen alone as part of the assessment. The mother could make representations about the resulting report.
4. Timetable. Any further examination had to be arranged within the existing timetable. The care timetable was more important than the examination, although the court supported arranging the assessment if this could be done without delay.
5. Concurrence and orders. Lord Justice Aldous expressly adopted Lady Justice Hale’s views and reiterated that contact should be reviewed regularly, observing that six weeks was a long interval. There was no order for costs, save for detailed assessment of the costs of publicly funded parties.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 1 March 2002, the court granted permission on the contact issue, treated the matter as the hearing of the appeal, directed an independent psychiatric assessment, and made no defined contact order: [2002] EWCA Civ 338.
• Principal Registry of the Family Division. Her Honour Judge Mitchell dismissed the mother’s appeal against the interim care order and the fixing of the final hearing, and refused increased contact, on 13 December 2001.