LT v RT

Summary removal of children from one parent to another is an exceptional measure. It ordinarily requires a proper opportunity to prepare and address the application, access to the material relied on, consideration of less drastic alternatives, and a prompt return date where urgent action is unavoidable. The absence of physical or sexual harm does not itself justify precipitous removal based principally on a risk of emotional harm or parental influence. Procedural unfairness may require an appellate court to set aside the order, but the court must also consider the children’s current welfare and any beneficial progress achieved since the order. Appropriate interim arrangements may therefore be substituted pending review.

The mother appealed against an interim care order made by HHJ Williscroft on 5 June 2024 in private law proceedings concerning two children. The order enabled the local authority to transfer the children’s residence immediately from the mother to the father. The parents had attended court expecting urgent directions, but had not been told that removal was sought. Material assessments were not provided in adequate time, the mother’s access to her phone and documents was restricted, and neither parent was legally represented.

The application was advanced principally on the asserted risk of emotional harm, including the mother allegedly influencing the children against their father, and on an alleged flight risk. The central issues were whether the procedure and immediate transfer were fair and justified, and what interim arrangements should operate pending further review.

1. Appeal allowed. The procedure adopted on 5 June was unfair and could not justify the orders made. The parents were unaware that removal was sought, were deprived of material documents or given only inadequate time to read them, and had no proper opportunity to prepare and argue their cases (paras 7–12).
2. Parents must ordinarily have a proper opportunity to prepare and present their case before children are removed. Orders without proper notice are confined to rare cases in which waiting would expose children to serious physical or sexual harm, or another sufficiently urgent and proportionate risk, and should generally be accompanied by a very prompt return date. Those conditions were not present here (para 13).
3. The asserted risk that the mother might influence the children against their father was insufficient to justify summary removal. The dispute had been longstanding, and the evidence of a flight risk was virtually non-existent. Any such risk could have been addressed by less intrusive measures, including surrender of passports. Alternatives such as a penal notice, shared care, or an unless order were not considered (paras 14–17).
4. The interim care order had been made principally to enable the local authority to assist with implementation of the transfer. The court could not allow the 5 June orders to stand in light of the process by which they were obtained (paras 19–21 and 29).
5. The court nevertheless declined simply to restore the previous position because the evidence suggested that the children’s relationship with their father had improved since the transfer. A week-on, week-off shared-care arrangement was ordered from the following Monday, while preserving the children’s schooling and continuing until review on 22 July 2024. The mother was warned that encouraging disrespectful behaviour towards the father would damage her case (paras 23–29).

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from an interim care order made by HHJ Williscroft on 5 June 2024. The appeal was allowed and a week-on, week-off shared-care arrangement was ordered pending review.