A Father v A Mother & Ors

In private-law children proceedings, the court may make more than one direction under Children Act 1989, s 37, where an earlier investigation was not undertaken or failed materially to address the court’s concerns. The court may also make an interim care order under s 38 while directing a further investigation, but it cannot compel a local authority to issue care proceedings.

Any interim public-law order requires consideration of the welfare checklist, proportionality and the least interventionist course consistent with the children’s welfare. An interim care order may be proportionate even where immediate removal is not proposed, if sharing parental responsibility would secure necessary monitoring, services and protection.

These were long-running private-law proceedings concerning four children. Earlier fact-finding findings included the father’s threatening and aggressive behaviour, the mother’s alienating conduct and the failure of both parents to protect the children from their conflict. The mother’s allegations of rape and sexual abuse were not proved.

Following therapeutic and social-work interventions, contact with the youngest child progressed, but contact with the three older children did not. The local authority then halted the therapeutic work, proposed stepping down its involvement and invited the court to end the private-law proceedings. The Guardian supported a further s 37 investigation and interim public-law orders.

The central issues were whether the court should direct a further investigation under s 37 and whether interim care or supervision orders under s 38 were necessary and proportionate.

1. Further s 37 direction. The court had jurisdiction to make more than one s 37 direction in the same proceedings. A renewed or extended direction was permissible where the local authority had not complied with the earlier direction or its investigation had failed materially to engage with the court’s concerns. The direction required the local authority to reconsider whether public-law proceedings, services or other action were necessary. It did not compel the authority to issue proceedings.
2. Interim orders. The parties accepted that s 37(1) enabled the court to make interim public-law orders under s 38. The interim threshold was satisfied because the children had suffered, and were likely to continue to suffer, significant emotional harm attributable to the mother’s parenting, alienating behaviour, dysfunctional and enmeshed relationships, lack of boundaries and the resulting mental-health difficulties.
3. In deciding whether to make an interim order, the court had to apply the paramountcy principle, consider the welfare checklist and evaluate proportionality under article 8. The court had to adopt the least interventionist course consistent with the children’s welfare.
4. An interim supervision order would have no practical effect because the local authority proposed no enhanced services and could not share parental responsibility. An interim care order, by contrast, would enable the authority to monitor and support contact, promote direct and indirect relationships with the father, assess alternative therapeutic provision, support mental-health services and continue assessing the mother’s parenting.
5. Removal from the mother was not proposed and did not follow from the order. The local authority retained responsibility for deciding whether to issue proceedings and for any future care plan. In the unusual circumstances, an interim care order for eight weeks was necessary and proportionate. The court therefore directed a further s 37 investigation and made interim care orders in respect of all four children.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment noted that the same private-law proceedings had previously reached the Court of Appeal on costs in Re E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183.