A v A

An interim care order should be made only where the child’s safety demands immediate separation. The threshold for significant harm is not, by itself, sufficient. The court must address risks that cannot await the final hearing and apply a high, proportionate standard, including emotional safety. The child’s best interests receive particular importance and may override a parent’s interests according to the nature and seriousness of the risk. Removal is justified only where no less interventionist order will adequately protect the child.

The proceedings concerned four children who had been retained in Pakistan by their father after separation from their mother. Three children returned to this jurisdiction, while the youngest remained in Pakistan. Contact between the mother and the three returned children was extremely difficult, and the court was concerned that the children had been subjected to sustained emotional pressure and involved in the dispute between their parents.

The court considered whether to make an interim care order following a direction under section 37 of the Children Act, or instead to make an interim supervision order or no order. It also considered short-term arrangements for the youngest child, who was the subject of continuing wardship proceedings.

1. Immediate removal. The court found that the children were suffering significant emotional harm and were at high risk of further pressure if they remained in their existing setting. The father had shown no reliable commitment to facilitating contact with the mother and had treated the children as participants in the adult dispute.
2. Applicable standard. Satisfaction of the interim threshold under section 31 of the Children Act did not itself justify removal. An interim care decision must be confined to issues that cannot await the final hearing. Separation should occur only where the child’s safety demands immediate separation, and the standard is high. Emotional safety falls within the relevant safety assessment.
3. Proportionality and welfare. Removal had to be proportionate to the demonstrated risks, having regard to the children’s and both parents’ rights to family life under Article 8. The children’s best interests were given particular importance and, depending on the nature and seriousness of the risks, could override the parents’ interests. Their expressed wishes and feelings required consideration, but the court considered that those views had been substantially shaped by pressure and a false account of the mother’s conduct.
4. No lesser order. Applying the principle stated in Re B, that an interim or final care order should be made only if nothing else will do, the court concluded that supervision or no order would not permit effective assessment or protect the children. An interim care order was therefore made, with review listed for 19 November 2013.
5. The youngest child. In the continuing wardship proceedings, the court directed that the youngest child should return to the mother’s care on returning to this jurisdiction. The court refused permission to appeal and refused a stay.