G (Children), Re

When deciding whether to terminate parental contact, the court must give sufficient reasons addressing the benefits of maintaining the child’s relationship with each parent. It must explain any distinction between parental contact and contact with other members of the child’s family. Where adoption is being considered, contact should ordinarily be assessed in the adoption context, rather than through an unnecessary interim order under section 34 of the Children Act.

Care proceedings concerned five children. The county court found that one or both parents had caused serious injuries to three children, but it could not determine which parent had caused which injury. The younger children were placed with foster carers who proposed to adopt them, while the father’s brother and his wife sought their care.

Although the judge contemplated limited contact between the mother and the children, he gave the local authority permission under section 34 of the Children Act to terminate the father’s contact. The father sought permission to appeal, arguing that the reasons for distinguishing his position were inadequate. The central issues were whether the reasons were sufficient and whether contact should be reconsidered in the forthcoming adoption proceedings.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed, and the order of 1 March 2002 giving the local authority permission to terminate the father’s contact was discharged.
2. Adequacy of reasons. The judge’s reasoning did not sufficiently analyse why maintaining the children’s link with their father would provide less benefit than maintaining their link with their mother. The finding that responsibility for the injuries was uncertain meant that the father’s absence could not be justified on the basis that he was proved to be the perpetrator.
3. The judge also failed adequately to explain why contact with the paternal uncle and aunt could be beneficial while contact with the father would cause confusion. The possible long-term benefits of children knowing their natural parents, including during adolescence and in understanding an adoption, required fuller consideration.
4. Timing and section 34. Section 34 merely relieved the local authority of its duty to facilitate contact. In the circumstances, where the local authority’s involvement was expected to end when an adoption order was made, the order was of little practical significance. The appropriate time to decide the form of parental contact was in the adoption context.
5. Following English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605, inviting the first-instance judge to supplement inadequate reasons may be appropriate. Here, however, the imminent adoption hearing made it preferable to discharge the order and leave contact to be reconsidered afresh by the county court in that context. Sir Martin Nourse agreed with Lord Justice Ward.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal granted; appeal allowed; the order of 1 March 2002 was discharged and contact was to be reconsidered in the adoption context.
• Middlesbrough County Court — His Honour Judge Taylor made findings in care proceedings and gave the local authority permission under section 34 of the Children Act to terminate the father’s contact.