London Borough of Ealing v C (Children)

Where a child is in local-authority care, the statutory starting point is reasonable contact with the parents. A refusal beyond an urgent period of up to seven days requires court authorisation. The court must determine the child’s welfare by focusing on wishes and feelings, evidence of harm or re-traumatisation, and the risks of renewed contact. Administrative failings by the authority, although important and requiring redress, must not distract from that welfare assessment. Where the evidence establishes that renewed contact is not in the child’s best interests, permission to refuse contact may be granted for a time-limited period. The period may provide a framework for therapy and relevant investigations, while leaving any future restoration of contact to a later welfare determination.

Three children were living with foster carers under care orders made in 2013. Contact with their parents had ceased in June 2015. The parents applied for direct contact, and the local authority applied for permission to refuse contact. On 1 November 2016, Recorder Sapsford QC dismissed the parents’ application but made no order on the local authority’s application.

The local authority appealed, supported by the children’s Guardian. The appeal concerned whether the lower court had properly assessed the children’s welfare in light of their wishes, the evidence of adverse effects from contact, the need for therapy and an ongoing police investigation, and whether any permission to refuse contact should be time-limited.

The appeal was allowed. The order making no order on the local authority’s application was set aside. The local authority was granted permission to refuse contact between the parents and each child for a period of no more than two years from 6 July 2017.

1. Under section 34 of the Children Act 1989, a local authority caring for a child must allow reasonable contact with the parents. A refusal of contact, other than an urgent refusal lasting no more than seven days, requires court authorisation.
2. The lower court had been distracted by the local authority’s serious failures, including failures in care planning, communication and arranging therapy. Those failures were important and required redress, but the judge had focused on them instead of the essential welfare factors governing contact.
3. The evidence supporting refusal was unanimous and uncontradicted apart from the parents’ evidence. It included the children’s firm and repeated objections, objective evidence of adverse effects from contact, professional evidence that renewed contact risked re-traumatising them, and the background of previous findings concerning their welfare. That evidence justified permission to refuse contact.
4. The police investigation made it inadvisable to reintroduce direct contact while it continued. However, even without the investigation, the welfare evidence was sufficient. The parents’ application for renewed contact had no prospect of success when made.
5. A time limit was appropriate because it provided a framework within which the local authority had to act, particularly given its poor record in arranging therapy. Successful therapy would not itself require contact to be restored; that would remain a future welfare determination.

The monitoring officer, through the Director of Children’s Services, was directed to report on the authority’s failings and the steps taken to remedy them and provide services, including therapy.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the local authority’s appeal and set aside the order made on 1 November 2016.
2. West London Family Court: Recorder Sapsford QC dismissed the parents’ application for contact and made no order on the local authority’s application for permission to refuse contact.