SR v OR

A court-appointed reporter must conduct the task directed by the court and must take account of the court’s findings and orders. A welfare assessment prepared in ignorance of material findings, or on a basis inconsistent with the order, may invalidate a subsequent contact decision.

Existing contact may be preserved where it is operating satisfactorily and interruption would be contrary to the children’s interests. An extension to staying contact should not be ordered without up-to-date investigation of the children’s welfare, the parents’ circumstances, the impact of earlier traumatic events, and the effect of contact to date.

The appeal concerned arrangements for three children following parental separation and a fact-finding hearing. The first recorder made findings concerning financial control, threats relating to immigration, physical abuse and the mother’s involvement of the children in adult disputes. The court contemplated possible care or supervision proceedings and directed a report under Children Act 1989, section 37.

The report was prepared before the reporter had received, or properly considered, the earlier judgment and order. A later recorder nevertheless ordered extensive unsupervised contact, including overnight stays. The mother appealed. Pending the appeal, the existing unsupervised daytime arrangements continued, while staying contact was stayed. The central issues were whether the process leading to the order was defective and whether staying contact could safely be introduced without further welfare investigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The process adopted below was unsatisfactory. The section 37 reporter had prepared her report in ignorance of, and inconsistently with, the first recorder’s findings and order. That defect was sufficient to justify allowing the appeal.
2. The court nevertheless considered the arrangements that had operated in practice. Weekly and alternate Saturday contact had taken place without complaint. The children’s lives had moved on, and ending those arrangements would have been difficult for them to understand. Those arrangements were therefore continued.
3. Staying contact required further investigation. The court needed updated evidence about the mother’s feelings concerning overnight contact, the parents’ responses to the traumatic events identified at the fact-finding hearing, the children’s welfare, and the effect of contact to date.
4. The need for an updated assessment was reinforced by material changes in the father’s circumstances. He had separated from his recent partner, alleged that he had experienced domestic abuse, was receiving domestic-abuse and mental-health support, and was staying with his brother. The suitability of that accommodation for staying contact was unknown.
5. A new Cafcass report was directed, rather than a supplemental report from the original reporter. The report was to address the earlier judgments and findings, the contact since the previous year, and its impact on the children and both parents. The father was directed to provide an updating statement and a GP report. The stay of the overnight-contact order was continued pending further directions or an early resolution hearing.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from an order made by Recorder Foster in the Family Court at Watford. The order was set aside in substance, existing daytime contact was continued, staying contact remained stayed, and the matter was remitted for updated welfare assessment and further directions.