GR & Ors (Children), Re

An interim care order involves two distinct stages. The court must first find reasonable grounds for believing that the statutory care threshold is satisfied. It must then decide separately whether the child’s welfare requires the order.

Interim removal is justified only where the child’s safety demands immediate protection. Safety bears a broad meaning and includes emotional safety and psychological welfare as well as physical safety. The court must balance the harm of remaining at home against the harm caused by separation. An interim hearing should preserve a safe holding position without prematurely determining issues reserved for the final hearing.

The local authority sought interim care orders for four children following a long history of neglect, alleged physical and emotional abuse, poor school attendance and an incident in which the two older boys alleged violence by the father. Mr Recorder Pulman QC granted orders for the older boys but refused orders for the two younger children, C and G.

The local authority appealed, contending principally that the Recorder had inadequately assessed the family history and risk of physical harm, and had failed properly to address or explain his departure from the children’s guardian’s recommendation. The central issue was whether the Recorder’s evaluation and discretionary welfare decision justified appellate intervention.

1. Permission to appeal was granted, but the local authority’s substantive appeal was dismissed. The Recorder’s decision that interim removal of C and G was not required fell within the range of decisions reasonably open to him. Richards LJ and Moore-Bick LJ agreed with Black LJ.
2. An interim care application requires two distinct stages. Under section 38(2) of the Children Act 1989, the court must first find reasonable grounds for believing that the section 31(2) circumstances exist. If that threshold is crossed, the court must decide separately whether to make an interim order. At the second stage, the child’s welfare is paramount and the delay principle, no-order principle and welfare checklist apply.
3. Interim removal is permitted only where the child’s safety requires immediate protection. “Safety” is not confined to physical safety. It includes emotional safety and psychological welfare, consistently with Re B and KB [2009] EWCA 1254. The court must also consider the harm that removal and extended separation may cause.
4. The interim hearing must remain confined to matters that cannot await the final hearing. Ordinarily, it should not determine disputed facts conclusively or usurp the full trial. The Recorder considered both physical and non-physical risks and was entitled to conclude that the emotional, educational and neglect concerns did not require the younger children’s immediate separation.
5. The Recorder was wrong to disregard the pre-2000 chronology merely because of its age. A court requires the full history to assess the duration and pattern of family difficulties. Nevertheless, the wider history had substantially been explored in evidence and submissions, and this error did not invalidate the ultimate decision.
6. The Recorder was entitled to doubt the older boys’ allegations without finally determining their truth. At an interim hearing, the judge must examine the available material critically for serious contradictions, impossibility and other matters affecting cogency. The evidence permitted more than one conclusion, so the appellate court could not substitute its own assessment.
7. The Recorder gave sufficient reasons for departing from the guardian’s recommendation. He could scrutinise the evolution of her opinion, her initial treatment of the children as a group and whether her assessment set the threshold for interim removal too low.
8. The mother’s proposed challenge to the expired short-term interim orders was academic. Permission to appeal on that issue was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission was granted to the local authority, but its appeal was dismissed. The mother was refused permission to appeal against the expired short-term interim care orders.
2. Chelmsford County Court: Mr Recorder Pulman QC granted interim care orders for the two older children, refused them for C and G, and made short-term orders to permit an application to the Court of Appeal.