CDM v CM & Ors

A direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 is a focused protective measure. The court must have reasonable grounds for believing that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and that a care or supervision order may be appropriate.

Where removal from a residential parent is contemplated in an intractable contact dispute, removal must serve the child’s welfare and form part of a coherent care plan. Material abuse allegations require prior judicial findings. The local authority must receive clear reasons and the relevant findings. Separate representation, professional advice, judicial continuity and strict control of delay are important safeguards.

A parent’s persistent manipulation of children into false abuse beliefs may constitute significant emotional harm. Where that parent lacks insight and the harm is likely to recur, residence may safely be transferred to the other parent with local-authority supervision.

The father applied to restore contact with two children who lived with their mother. The mother had caused the children to become alienated from their father and paternal grandparents and to make false allegations of physical and sexual abuse. The court found that the children were suffering significant emotional harm and that the threshold criteria for public-law intervention were met.

The court initially directed the local authority to investigate under section 37 of the Children Act 1989. The authority agreed that the children were suffering significant harm, commenced care proceedings and obtained an interim care order. After removal from the mother’s influence, the children rapidly restored their relationships with their father and paternal grandparents.

The final issues were whether the children could safely return to the mother, whether they should live with the father, what supervision was required and how future contact with the mother should be managed.

1. Section 37 direction. The direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 was appropriate. The children were suffering significant emotional harm attributable to the mother’s manipulation of them into false beliefs that their father and paternal grandparents had abused them. The circumstances satisfied the statutory threshold and required intervention rather than the continuation of the existing arrangements.

2. Section 37 is a focused power. At minimum, the court must have reasonable grounds for believing that the threshold in section 31(2) is met and that a care or supervision order may be appropriate. Any contemplated removal must promote the children’s welfare and form part of a coherent plan. Where alleged abuse is advanced as the reason for refusing contact, the relevant allegations should first be adjudicated and clear findings supplied to the local authority.

3. Effective use of section 37 also requires clear reasons, prompt communication with the local authority, separate representation of the children, appropriate professional advice, judicial continuity and strict control of delay. The court may make an interim care or supervision order when directing an investigation, but immediate removal was initially inappropriate because the children faced no immediate physical danger and no care plan had yet been formulated.

4. Final welfare decision. The mother remained unable to accept responsibility for the children’s alienation and significant harm. Her stated change of position depended only upon the children’s changed account and showed no insight into her conduct. Returning the children to her therefore presented an unacceptable risk of renewed emotional pressure and further harm.

5. The father’s proposed care, supported initially by the paternal grandparents and by therapeutic and social-work services, offered the safer arrangement. A residence order was made in his sole favour. A joint order with the grandparents was rejected because parental responsibility for the children’s care should rest with the father.

6. A two-year supervision order was made because the transition and the children’s continuing needs required sustained local-authority support. Contact with the mother was left to the local authority’s discretion. Skilled intervention was required to rebuild that relationship while avoiding a reversal of the former alienation. No further routine judicial review was ordered.

The judgment was given at first instance but describes substantial earlier proceedings.

• High Court (Family Division): Following the section 37 investigation, the local authority commenced care proceedings. The children were removed under an interim care order for assessment. The court ultimately made a residence order in the father’s favour and a two-year supervision order.
• High Court (Family Division): The children had previously been joined as parties and separately represented. Earlier High Court orders had sought supervised contact and invited the Official Solicitor to intervene.
• County Court: Earlier contact and enforcement proceedings resulted in findings that the mother’s allegations were false, an order for contact and a suspended committal order after she was found in contempt for obstructing contact.