G (A Child)

An appellate court should not disturb an interim care order where the statutory threshold is met and the order falls within a proper exercise of the trial judge’s discretion on the material available. Where care proceedings are closely linked with judicial review proceedings, early case management may appropriately be undertaken by a judge able to exercise jurisdiction in both. The care proceedings may be transferred to the High Court for that purpose, while decisions about a residential assessment, its practicality, the child’s interests and funding remain matters for the judge exercising discretion under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989. Permission to appeal may therefore be granted while the appeal against the interim order is dismissed and ancillary directions are varied.

An 18-year-old mother appealed against an interim care order made by His Honour Judge Inglis in Nottingham County Court on 1 February 2008 concerning her newborn son. Shortly after the child’s birth, the local authority removed him from the mother’s care without a prior court order. The child was reunited with her following a peremptory order made by Munby J in related judicial review proceedings concerning the mother’s pathway plan. The local authority then issued care proceedings and obtained an interim care order.

Before the Court of Appeal, the mother sought permission to appeal and asked for a rapid viability assessment by the Cassel Hospital. The issues included whether the interim order should stand, how the care proceedings should be managed alongside the judicial review, and whether the proceedings should be transferred for an early decision on a possible residential assessment.

Disposition. Lord Justice Wall granted permission to appeal, dismissed the appeal against the interim care order, varied the case-management directions and directed that the next hearing take place before Munby J in Liverpool on 18 February 2008. Lord Justice Ward agreed.

1. The interim care order was plainly within the proper exercise of the judge’s discretion under sections 38(1) and 38(2) of the Children Act 1989. The threshold criteria under section 38(2) were conceded to be met. On the material available, the exercise of discretion was almost inevitable.
2. The substantive question was whether the mother and child could remain together, whether the mother could care for the child, and whether that arrangement would serve the child’s interests. The Court of Appeal did not determine that question or direct that a viability assessment should take place.
3. Where care proceedings plainly overlap with judicial review proceedings, it is sensible, at least at the early stages, for the case to be managed by a judge with jurisdiction to sit in both. The care proceedings were therefore to be transferred to the High Court for the hearing before Munby J, who could decide whether a full residential assessment should be ordered under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989, whether it was practicable and in the child’s interests, and whether the matter should later return to the county court.
4. The local authority agreed to use its best endeavours to serve its assessment of the maternal grandparents by 17 February and to provide the relevant contact notes. Questions concerning any assessment and its funding were left to Munby J’s discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal granted. Appeal against the interim care order dismissed. Case-management directions varied and the next hearing directed to take place before Munby J in the High Court.
• Nottingham County Court — His Honour Judge Inglis made an interim care order on 1 February 2008 and directed further case management, including assessments and contact evidence.