A (A Child), Re

In ongoing wardship proceedings, an order securing parents’ passports can be a proportionate response to a real risk of further child abduction, especially where the order is limited in time and accepted by the parents.

On an appeal against a welfare decision, the Court of Appeal must read the first-instance judgment fairly and as a whole. Brevity, or an unfortunate word such as breakdown, does not establish a flawed risk assessment where the judge identified the risks, evaluated the proposed carers and balanced placement failure against adoption. Respect is due to a judge who heard the evidence and managed the case throughout.

A local authority appealed from Keehan J’s welfare decision in care proceedings concerning a young child whose parents had previously taken her abroad. The judge rejected care and placement-for-adoption orders and placed the child with her maternal grandparents under wardship, supported by a supervision order, injunctions restricting parental contact and a passport order.

The appeal challenged the passport order as disproportionate and argued that the judge’s risk assessment was inadequate, particularly in relation to renewed abduction or disruption of the placement. The central questions were whether the passport restriction was proportionate and whether the welfare decision was one open to the judge on the evidence.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The wardship, injunctions and supervision arrangements remained in place.

1. Passport order. The proceedings remained live because the child was a ward of court and the case stood adjourned for review. In those circumstances, and given the history of abduction, restricting the parents’ ability to leave the jurisdiction was within the court’s jurisdiction. The parents consented to the order. A 12-month period for holding their passports and travel documents was proportionate to the need to protect the child and prevent further abduction ([2015] EWCA Civ 162, [27]–[33]).
2. Welfare assessment. The decisive issue was whether the grandparents could safely protect the child from the parents’ unpredictable conduct. The judge expressly identified the real risks, including renewed abduction, interference with the placement and possible placement breakdown. He also considered the grandparents’ ability and readiness to manage those risks, the consequences of failure and the disadvantages of adoption ([42], [48]–[55]).
3. Appellate review. The judge’s favourable assessment of the grandparents was entitled to substantial respect because he had heard their evidence on several occasions and had managed the case throughout. Although the judgment was brief and the use of breakdown was unfortunate, its terms did not justify inferring that the judge had forgotten or failed to weigh the risk of abduction. The decision was open to him. A further forensic risk assessment was not required before making the order ([46], [58], [71]–[75]).
4. Implementation. As several months had elapsed, the parties were expected to co-operate in planning the child’s rapid move to the grandparents, with appropriate support and advice ([77]–[80]).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2015] EWCA Civ 162: dismissed the local authority’s appeal.
• District Registry sitting at Birmingham, Keehan J: dismissed applications for care and placement-for-adoption orders and ordered placement with the maternal grandparents under wardship, with supervision and protective injunctions.