C v D

An appellate court should intervene in a family case only where the decision below was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity. A judge may vary interim child contact arrangements after considering the evidence in the round, including expert and local-authority material, and may depart to a limited extent from expert advice if clear reasons are given. Professional supervision need not continue where the judge has properly assessed the safeguarding risk and reasonably concludes that family supervision, together with other protective measures, is sufficient. Robust case-management decisions, including reserving proceedings to the hearing judge, should be respected on appeal where no error of principle is shown.

C appealed against an order made by Her Honour Judge Nott on 18 February 2025 in ongoing child-arrangements proceedings concerning two children. The appeal challenged the substitution of supervision by members of the paternal family for supervision by an independent social worker, and the decision to reserve the proceedings to HHJ Nott.

The lower court had considered a fact-finding judgment, expert evidence, a local-authority section 7 report and the history of supervised contact. Permission to appeal was granted by Arbuthnot J. The central issues were whether HHJ Nott had erred in assessing risk and departing from the expert material without further oral evidence, and whether reserving the proceedings constituted an appealable error.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under Family Proceedings Rule 30.12(3), an appeal succeeds only where the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. HHJ Nott had considered the relevant evidence, including the expert report, the local-authority report, the fact-finding judgment, witness statements and contact-supervision records. She recognised that she was departing to a limited extent from the expert view, considered Practice Direction 12J, and gave adequate reasons. It was open to her to determine the issue on submissions without cross-examining the expert.
3. The decision to replace independent social-work supervision with supervision by an adult member of the paternal family was a fact-sensitive case-management and welfare decision. Relevant considerations included months of incident-free and positive contact, the competence of a paternal family member, the continuing expert assessment and court proceedings, the limited duration of contact, and the assessment that there was no significant risk requiring professional supervision.
4. The expert and section 7 reports were nuanced and did not clearly identify an unreservedly significant safeguarding risk if supervision by an independent social worker ceased. The judge was entitled to assess risk in the round and to conclude that family supervision was sufficient.
5. The decision to reserve the proceedings to HHJ Nott was also within the proper scope of case management. HHJ Sweeney had moved to another geographical court, and no error of approach or principle was established. Appellate courts should support robust but fair case-management directions.

• High Court (Family Division): Appeal against the order of Her Honour Judge Nott dated 18 February 2025 dismissed.
• Permission to appeal: Granted by Arbuthnot J on 25 March 2025.