M (A Child), Re

A restriction under section 91(14) must be imposed cautiously and proportionately, with child welfare remaining paramount. It should ordinarily be sought by an application supported by evidence, after the person affected has been given a proper opportunity to respond.

The order must identify the nature of the future applications requiring permission. A blanket restriction, imposed immediately after a parent’s courtroom outburst without adequate procedural safeguards, may exceed the generous ambit of the judge’s discretion. The court should consider whether an adjournment would better promote the child’s welfare by allowing the parent to re-engage constructively with the proceedings.

The father applied in the Sheffield County Court for contact with, and parental responsibility for, his nearly nine-year-old child. Supervised contact had been taking place, but arrangements for affordable future supervision were difficult.

During the resumed hearing, the father became distressed, sought to withdraw his applications and left court after the judge refused withdrawal. The judge dismissed his applications, made limited indirect-contact provision, declined parental responsibility and made a two-year section 91(14) order restricting future applications.

The father appealed with permission. The central issue was whether the immediate and broadly expressed restriction on further applications was a proper exercise of discretion in the child’s welfare interests.

1. Appeal allowed. The section 91(14) order was set aside. Although the judge faced a difficult situation and the father’s conduct was damaging to his case, the restriction exceeded the generous ambit of her discretion and was plainly wrong.
2. Child welfare remained paramount, but the father’s outburst did not justify an immediate final response which barred his further engagement with the family justice system. The judge should have considered an adjournment, at least briefly, so that the father could reflect, take advice and re-engage in the proceedings.
3. A section 91(14) restriction requires caution. It should properly be advanced by an application supported by evidence, and the person to be restricted must have every opportunity to answer it. The limited warning in the guardian’s report did not provide an adequate basis for the order made.
4. The statutory restriction must also specify the nature of the future applications which cannot be issued without permission. The blanket formulation used below did not do so.
5. The court directed the father to issue a fresh application in the Sheffield County Court by 4 pm the following day. It ordered a supplementary report from Dr Lynch, replacement of the child’s guardian, a fresh guardian’s report, expedition, and a final hearing before a different identified judge if available.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the father’s appeal and set aside the two-year section 91(14) order.
• Sheffield County Court: HHJ Carr QC dismissed the father’s applications, made limited indirect-contact provision, declined parental responsibility and imposed the restriction on future applications.