C (A Child), Re

An interim care order does not require the court finally to decide that the care threshold is met. Under section 38 of the Children Act 1989, reasonable grounds for believing that the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm attributable to inadequate parental care are sufficient. Significant harm must justify proportionate interference with family life. Once the threshold is crossed, welfare is paramount and the welfare checklist applies, including consideration of less interventionist orders. On appeal, interference is justified only for legal error, plain factual error, or an exercise outside the generous ambit of discretion. Subsequent evidence may illuminate the position at the material time.

Care proceedings concerning a six-year-old child were transferred to Reading County Court. HHJ Hamilton made an interim care order on 11 March 2011, following earlier interim orders, and the mother appealed. A further interim care order was made on 20 May 2011, in respect of which the father sought permission to appeal.

The appeals concerned whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 existed, and whether the child’s welfare required continued foster care rather than return to the mother. The central issue was whether the judge had been wrong to continue the interim care arrangements.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the mother’s appeal and refused the father permission to appeal.

1. Under section 38 of the Children Act 1989, an interim care order may be made only where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances specified in section 31(2) exist. The interim court addresses a lesser hurdle than the trial court. It need not finally determine whether the threshold is proved.
2. Significant harm means harm sufficiently serious to justify interference by the local authority in family life. The assessment must compare the child’s development with that reasonably expected of a similar child. Any interference must be necessary and proportionate, having regard to Article 8.
3. Once the threshold is crossed, the child’s welfare is paramount. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) applies to interim orders as well as final orders. The court must consider the full range of powers, including making no order or making a supervision order.
4. On appeal, the court reviews whether the judgment was wrong. It may intervene for an error of principle or a plainly wrong evaluation of the facts, and may interfere with discretion only where the decision falls outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible. Appropriate respect remains due to a judge immersed in the case.
5. The local authority’s earlier assessment did not prevent it, or the court, from reviewing the position. Later evidence could illuminate the circumstances at the material time. The totality of the evidence, including the child’s emotional difficulties, the mother’s fragile mental state, the history of parental conflict and the likely resistance to professional intervention, afforded reasonable grounds for believing that significant emotional harm had occurred or was likely to occur.
6. The judge properly balanced the harm caused by foster care against the greater harm likely to result from returning the child to the mother’s care. His conclusion fell within the permissible range of discretion. The father had no real prospect of succeeding on the same threshold challenge. The court noted subsequent improvements in placement and contact and encouraged continued constructive engagement before the final hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2011] EWCA Civ 918: the mother’s appeal against the interim care order of 11 March 2011 was dismissed. The father’s application for permission to appeal against the further interim care order of 20 May 2011 was refused.
• Reading County Court — HHJ Hamilton made the interim care order on 11 March 2011 and a further interim care order on 20 May 2011.