W (A Child), Re

An appellate court should respect a specialist family judge’s discretionary decision on interim contact in an emergency. Where the judge considers the importance of contact, risks to the child, proposed safeguards and possible alternatives, intervention is justified only if the conclusion was plainly wrong. Urgency, limited preparation and the absence of oral evidence do not themselves justify interference. A short interim period does not require contact where protective arrangements are not considered trustworthy, although the position may be revisited after fuller investigation.

The local authority removed a newborn child into foster care under a police emergency protection order after concerns about the father’s criminal record, threats and risk to the child, together with the mother’s vulnerability. It sought an interim care order and authority under section 34.4 to refuse contact between the mother and child. The interim care order was not opposed. After a one-hour hearing based on submissions and the available assessments, HHJ Watson refused interim contact but directed that the issue be revisited on 28 February 2013. The mother appealed, contending that the risks were overstated and that adequate safeguards were available. The central issue was whether the judge’s balancing exercise was plainly wrong.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Thorpe gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Pitchford and Kitchin agreeing.

1. HHJ Watson had considered the competing factors relevant to interim contact, including the benefits of contact between the mother and newborn child, the risks arising from the father’s threats and the mother’s vulnerability, proposed protective arrangements, and alternatives such as supervised contact or Skype.
2. The judge was entitled to conclude that there were no trustworthy arrangements sufficient to safeguard the child. The short duration of the interim period did not require contact to be permitted, particularly since the issue was to be reconsidered shortly after fuller investigation.
3. Emergency family proceedings may require an immediate decision without an adjournment for further evidence, prepared position statements or oral evidence. Where the specialist judge has regard to the relevant material and factors, the Court of Appeal should not interfere unless the conclusion was plainly wrong.
4. On the material available, including the psychological reports, social work assessment, care plan and guardian’s concerns, the decision fell well within the judge’s discretion. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court of Justice, Family Division: On 12 February 2013, HHJ Watson granted the interim care order and refused the local authority’s application for authority to restrict or prevent contact between the mother and child, while indicating that the issue would be revisited on 28 February 2013.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed on 21 February 2013. [2013] EWCA Civ 314