K (Children), Re

In children proceedings, a court may make robust arrangements on limited evidence where speed and welfare require it. Before determining substantive residence or contact issues, however, it should clarify the hearing’s scope and decide whether the procedure is fair and proportionate. It should not assume disputed allegations against a parent without giving that parent a proper opportunity to answer them. Review hearings require clarity about whether substantive, interim or final orders may be made. A court may entrust contact arrangements to social services where that presently serves the child’s best interests, provided the matter remains capable of reconsideration.

The mother appealed against orders concerning the residence of four children and her contact with them. The children were living with the father, who was the biological father of the two older children but not of the younger two. After hearing a social worker but not the parents, the judge ordered residence with the father, continued contact arrangements, and adjourned the mother’s applications generally with liberty to restore.

The appeal challenged the procedure, the refusal to appoint a guardian or psychologist, the contact arrangements, and the failure to determine disputed allegations of domestic abuse. Subsequent events, including the suspension of contact with one child, made a further fact-finding exercise necessary.

Appeal allowed. The residence order concerning the two older children remained in place. The county court was to reconsider the future conduct of the case, including residence of the younger two children and contact, with a free hand and without being constrained by the previous hearing.

1. The judge was entitled to decline to appoint a guardian or instruct a psychologist. The local authority had been closely involved, continued to promote contact, and could convey the children’s views. Additional professionals would cause delay, while the children needed stability.
2. The judge had not abdicated responsibility for contact. He decided that contact should occur, entrusted its further promotion to social services, and preserved the mother’s ability to return to court if contact did not progress.
3. The critical procedural difficulty was that the judge determined residence and contact issues while effectively assuming that the father’s and local authority’s allegations of physical and emotional abuse would be established. The mother was not given a proper opportunity to give evidence, challenge the father’s case, or address the factual basis for the orders.
4. A court may proceed summarily or on limited evidence in an appropriate case, but normally there must first be argument about whether that course is suitable and an articulated judicial decision that it is appropriate. The hearing here was insufficiently fair.
5. The parties were to prepare schedules of allegations and identify supporting evidence. The judge was then to decide which allegations could affect welfare decisions and regulate a proportionate fact-finding exercise.

Future review hearings should clearly specify their form and ambit, the issues to be addressed, whether evidence is contemplated, and whether resulting orders will be case-management, interim or final orders.

• Willesden County Court: Ordered that the children reside with the father, directed that he make them available for contact as directed by the local authority, and adjourned the mother’s applications generally with liberty to restore.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal. The order concerning the two older children remained in force, while the county court was to reconsider the remaining residence and contact issues following proportionate fact-finding.