C (a child), Re

The threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 may be crossed where proven child-related domestic violence and parenting difficulties create a real possibility of repetition causing significant emotional and physical harm, even though a more serious allegation is not proved. The court must consider the incidents in their family context, including minimisation of the conduct and rejection of voluntary help. Whether the threshold is crossed is primarily for the trial judge. The Court of Appeal should not interfere absent legal misdirection or a conclusion that was plainly wrong.

The parents appealed separately from a judgment of HHJ Duggan in the Stoke on Trent County Court. The proceedings followed domestic violence at the family home involving a five-week-old child, together with an earlier episode. The judge rejected the allegation that the father had shaken the child, but found that he had committed domestic violence, had been unable to cope with the child’s crying, and that the parents had minimised the incidents and rejected voluntary assistance.

The judge held that the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was crossed and made an interim supervision order. The central issue on appeal was whether the proven facts were sufficient, notwithstanding the failure to prove the shaking allegation.

The Court of Appeal, with Lord Justice Gage and Lord Justice Toulson agreeing with Lord Justice Thorpe, dismissed both appeals.

1. Section 31 threshold. The question was whether the proven facts created a real possibility that the child would suffer significant emotional and physical harm through repetition of similar incidents. Proof that the father had shaken the child was unnecessary. The judge was entitled to rely on the established domestic violence, the father’s inability to cope with a crying infant, his shouting and swearing at the child, and the earlier episode.
2. Risk and family context. The parents’ minimisation of the incidents and rejection of voluntary help supported the finding that repetition was likely. The fact that there were only two episodes, rather than a long history, did not prevent the threshold being crossed. The assessment properly addressed the circumstances in which the authorities became involved and the parents’ conduct in response to intervention.
3. Appellate review. No legal misdirection was alleged. The assessment was essentially for the trial judge, who had seen and assessed the parents and could evaluate the incidents alongside the prior context and subsequent reaction to professional intervention. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the judge was fully entitled to reach the conclusion he did and would not interfere merely because the appellants advanced a different evaluation of the facts.
4. Order. Both appeals were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2007] EWCA Civ 576. Permission to appeal was granted on renewal, and both parents’ appeals were dismissed.
• Stoke on Trent County Court: HHJ Duggan found that the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was crossed and made an interim supervision order.