London Borough of Haringey v Musa

A local authority must comply with an extant court order regulating contact unless and until the order is varied by the court. It cannot unilaterally terminate contact, even where safeguarding or adoption considerations make termination appear necessary. In care proceedings, important decisions must be reliably recorded, including who made the decision, when it was made and why. Court orders with continuing impact should be prominently available to the professionals managing the case. The independent reviewing officer’s statutory monitoring function is intended to scrutinise the local authority’s performance and help prevent such breaches.

The judgment followed two earlier public hearings in the same proceedings, including [2014] EWHC 962 (Fam) and [2014] EWHC 1200 (Fam). The proceedings concerned seven siblings, five of whom were to remain in foster care and two of whom were subject to placement orders for adoption.

A previous High Court order required reasonable direct contact between the younger children and their five older siblings, before and after placement, unless the court ordered otherwise. The local authority arranged a farewell contact meeting and then stopped direct contact without first obtaining a variation of that order. The issue at this hearing was the explanation for the breach, the role of the independent reviewing officer, and the directions required before a later hearing concerning contact and name changes.

1. Existing order. The local authority had acted in flagrant breach of the continuing contact order. The order required direct sibling contact unless and until the court ordered otherwise. The local authority could not lawfully treat adoption or confidentiality concerns as permitting unilateral termination of contact. Any change required an application to, and decision by, the court.
2. Systemic failure. The evidence disclosed a serious failure of communication, decision-making and record-keeping. No one could identify when, why or by whom the decision to terminate contact had been made. The court emphasised that every important decision must be recorded with its maker, date and reasons, and that an ongoing court order should be prominently attached to relevant files and records.
3. Independent reviewing officer. The court identified the statutory function under section 25B of the Children Act 1989 to monitor the local authority’s performance in relation to the children’s cases. The officer’s apparent failure to identify that a farewell visit could not lawfully occur without a court variation required investigation. The court therefore directed the officer to provide a detailed statement addressing her appointment, meetings, knowledge of the termination and steps taken to secure compliance.
4. Further directions and consequences. The court ordered the local authority to provide evidence explaining the decision-making failure and directed that apologies be given to the children and their parents. The ultimate decision on resuming or terminating direct sibling contact was reserved for a three-day hearing commencing on 1 July 2014. The court observed that the unilateral termination might have created a fait accompli and made restoration of contact exceptionally difficult.

The judgment was a further hearing in the same proceedings. Earlier hearings before the same judge resulted in judgments dated 19 March 2014, reported at [2014] EWHC 962 (Fam), and 11 April 2014, reported at [2014] EWHC 1200 (Fam). No appeal was determined in this judgment.