N-F (Children), Re

In interim care proceedings, the court may choose supervision rather than removal where the evidence supports a lower present risk and the parent is found to comply in practice with most requirements. The judge may consider whether removing other children will enable better care of those remaining at home.

An appellate court should uphold that evaluative decision where it has a sufficient evidential foundation, even if the judge has reservations about the parent’s credibility. Interim removal is distinct from the final welfare decision. A detailed compliance contract may be risk-laden where parents have cognitive disabilities, and continuation of supervision may be reconsidered if the factual basis for parental compliance changes.

A local authority appealed from an interim order made by His Honour Judge O’Malley in the Taunton County Court. The judge made interim care orders for C and Tk, but only interim supervision orders for L and W, pending final determination.

The local authority argued that the judge had misunderstood the Guardian’s evidence, acted inconsistently in relying on the mother’s compliance, and failed adequately to explain his departure from the Guardian’s recommendation. The central issue was whether the evidence provided a sufficient foundation for leaving L and W at home under supervision during the interim period.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Thorpe granted permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Hughes agreed with the whole of the judgment. The interim care orders for C and Tk and the interim supervision orders for L and W therefore stood.
2. The judge was entitled to distinguish between the risks faced by the children. He was entitled to find, despite concerns about the mother’s credibility, that she was prepared to comply and did in practice comply with most of the local authority’s requirements.
3. The judge was also entitled to conclude or surmise that, once C and Tk were removed, the parents would have more time to attend to L and W. Those findings supplied a sufficient foundation for the different interim orders. The appellate court therefore declined to interfere with the judge’s evaluative conclusion.
4. The court emphasised that removing children during interlocutory proceedings is distinct from determining their long-term welfare at the final hearing. The fact that the younger children’s long-term prospects were poor did not require their interim removal where the judge had trusted the parents for a short, supervised period.
5. The supervision order was implicitly founded on the mother’s continuing compliance with the local authority’s requirements. If an event or discovery disproved that finding before the final hearing, the local authority could return to the judge and seek reconsideration of whether the interim order should continue.
6. The court added that managing the case through a detailed three-and-a-half-page contract was risk-laden given the parents’ cognitive disability. Several requirements appeared to go beyond what was essentially necessary, and a signature would not necessarily have provided meaningful protection for the children.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission granted, but the resulting appeal dismissed.
• Taunton County Court: His Honour Judge O’Malley made interim care orders for C and Tk and interim supervision orders for L and W. Permission to appeal was refused.