A-T (Children)

In prolonged contact proceedings, the court should not continue towards a further hearing on the basis of directions that are unrealistic, unachievable or merely aspirational. The welfare of the children remains the focus, and limited work with a Guardian may be justified before the court finally disengages. A family assistance order may be used for that purpose. A section 91(14) prohibition may require a parent responsible for continuing litigation to obtain permission before making a further application and to show that there is a reasonable case to advance. The court left open whether it had jurisdiction to direct the instruction of a child psychiatrist.

Following extensive proceedings concerning contact between two children and their father, the Children’s Guardian appealed against an order made by HHJ Pearlman on 14 March 2008. The order dismissed the father’s applications for residence and leave to remove, but adjourned contact and contemplated further reports, counselling, anger management and supervised contact.

The appeal concerned whether the proposed further steps were realistic and compatible with the children’s welfare, whether the proceedings should continue, and what protective arrangements should be made for the future.

Appeal allowed. Thorpe LJ delivered the principal judgment, with which Wall LJ and Stanley Burnton LJ agreed.

1. The judge’s directions were unrealistic or unachievable. The proposed psychiatric assessment was only expressed as a wish and was not going to occur. The father’s participation in anger management was unrealistic because he continued to deny the established violence. Counselling for the mother was also unavailable. Continuing the litigation on that basis would serve no useful purpose and would prolong the stress affecting the mother.
2. The case concerned the children rather than the parents. Before finally departing from the proceedings, the court had responsibility to ensure that a limited amount of further work was undertaken between the children and the Guardian. The Guardian should remain involved to help the children adjust to the situation. A family assistance order was therefore substituted, addressed to the Guardian and including the mother and children but not the father, for six months.
3. No order for contact was made and the leave previously given to the Guardian to arrange supervised contact was removed. The father was made subject to a 12-month prohibition under section 91(14). He would require permission to make a further application and would have to demonstrate that there was a case it was reasonable for him to advance.
4. The court expressly declined to endorse, and reserved for another occasion, the judge’s apparent conclusion that there was no jurisdiction to order or direct the Guardian to instruct a child psychiatrist. No determination was made on that issue.

The mother and Guardian were given liberty to restore the matter to HHJ Pearlman if necessary. Paragraphs 4 to 11 of the judge’s order were set aside and the proposed substitute orders were made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission granted and appeal allowed. Paragraphs 4 to 11 of the order were set aside and substitute orders were made, including a six-month family assistance order and a 12-month section 91(14) prohibition.
• Principal Registry of the Family Division: HHJ Pearlman made the order dated 14 March 2008, dismissing the father’s applications for residence and leave to remove, while adjourning contact and directing or contemplating further steps.