N - C ( Children), Re

Interim removal of a child from parental care is a draconian measure and a step of last resort. The court must give serious consideration to returning the child where that can be achieved without prejudice to the child’s welfare or protection. In an appellate challenge to an interim decision, the court should consider the sequence of hearings and the reasons as a whole. It should also recognise the difficulties faced by a trial judge managing an unexpected development in care proceedings. Where a final hearing is imminent, it is generally inappropriate to require a further profound investigation of the interim issue. An appellate court should support the trial judge’s case management and interim assessment where the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion reached and gave sufficient reasons.

Care proceedings concerned a large Slovakian family. After allegations that the father had sexually interfered with another child, the youngest child, B, was removed from the family home under an interim care order. The mother sought B’s immediate return, alternatively increased contact. The Manchester County Court dealt with the issue through three hearings in May, June and July 2011. The judge refused immediate return on 4 July, relying on the uncertainty surrounding the mother’s position, allegations concerning another child, and concerns about the family home and possible removal of B to Slovakia.

The mother appealed, criticising the judge’s reasoning as one-sided and the investigation as insufficient. The central issue was whether the judge had adequately justified refusing B’s interim return pending the final hearing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the refusal to return B was an interim decision which had to be assessed in the context of the three hearings taken together. Although the material and absence of transcripts were unsatisfactory, the sequence showed a swift and continuing investigation of whether B could safely be returned.
2. Removal from parental care was properly treated as draconian and as a step of last resort. The judge had correctly directed himself that serious consideration had to be given to returning B if this could be achieved without prejudice to her welfare and protection.
3. The judge was entitled to place weight on the guardian’s concerns, including the concern that the mother might leave the country with B, even though no statement identified when the mother had made the relevant statement. The judge was also entitled to take account of the wider uncertainties concerning the mother’s position, A, and the management of the family home.
4. The Court of Appeal considered that the matter had not been investigated below with the profundity it might have required. However, with the final hearing only about eight weeks away, a further profound interim investigation was unthinkable. The court had to recognise the practical difficulties caused by an unexpected issue arising during interlocutory care proceedings and support a trial judge who had repeatedly managed the case and reached an interim decision.
5. Lady Justice Black agreed that, read with the May judgment, the judge had sufficiently explained his reasons. Order: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from orders and decisions of Manchester County Court, including the refusal on 4 July 2011 to return B pending the final hearing. Appeal dismissed.