G (A Child), Re

In child-contact proceedings under the Children Act 1989, a judge has a broad, quasi-inquisitorial discretion to manage interim arrangements, but that discretion has limits. A contact-centre arrangement should not be replaced by supervision in private premises where the change removes established safeguards and the judge has not adequately investigated the resident parent's objections, safeguarding concerns, and the proposed supervisor's suitability. The court must identify and weigh all material considerations, including the basis of any prior agreement, unresolved domestic-violence allegations, pending criminal proceedings, compliance with protective programmes, notice and opportunity to respond, and the likely effect on the child. Failure to do so may take the decision outside the permissible range of discretion.

This was the mother's appeal from Portsmouth County Court, where Her Honour Judge Black had on 20 January 2011 varied an earlier consent order for supported contact between the father and the infant child at a contact centre. The judge instead directed contact supervised by the paternal grandmother, subject to safeguarding checks. The mother relied on serious allegations of domestic violence, concerns about the grandmother's role, the father's pending criminal proceedings, and the absence of adequate notice or investigation at the short review hearing. The mother had also obtained non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996. The central issue was whether the judge had acted within her discretion in changing the basis of the contact arrangements.

1. Appeal allowed. The court, in a judgment given by Lord Justice Wilson and agreed by Lady Justice Smith, held that the circuit judge had gone outside the boundary of her wide discretion under the Children Act 1989. The judge's function was quasi-inquisitorial, and she was required to identify and weigh the relevant considerations even though the mother's advocacy had been insufficiently robust.
2. The existing arrangement had been agreed on the basis that contact would take place at a contact centre. That arrangement protected the child and enabled the mother to avoid direct contact with the father. Replacing it with contact supervised by the grandmother at private premises reawakened the mother's concerns and removed safeguards which had underpinned the agreement.
3. The judge failed adequately to investigate or weigh the serious allegations against the father and grandmother, the father's failure to begin the agreed anger-management and domestic-violence programmes, the pending criminal charges, the absence of responsive statements, the lack of notice of the proposed change, the short hearing time, and the mother's concerns about the grandmother's suitability. The grandmother's evidence also disclosed a significant safeguarding issue concerning the previous sexual abuse of her daughters. Criminal-record and social-services checks alone would not answer all the relevant concerns.
4. Lady Justice Smith emphasised that judges may deal summarily and robustly with suitable issues, but robustness has limits. The dispute about which contact centre should be used could have been resolved summarily. The fundamental change from contact-centre contact to private, family-supervised contact was not suitable for summary disposal without real evidential investigation.
5. The contact-centre arrangements were directed to remain in force until the hearing on 5 May 2011. That hearing was, with respect, to be conducted by a different judge. The parties were to address which contact centre should be used.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The mother's appeal was allowed: [2011] EWCA Civ 1147.
• Portsmouth County Court — Her Honour Judge Black varied the agreed supported-contact arrangements on 20 January 2011, directing contact supervised by the paternal grandmother.