W v J
[2024] EWFC 352 (B)
T (Interim Care Order: Arrangements for Contact), Re
7 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 469
Court of Appeal
A judge ordered a young child to see her mother despite the child being upset and serious accusations of abuse against the mother. A higher court overturned the decision because the judge didn't properly consider the child's feelings and safety. The case teaches us that a child's safety and well-being are most important when deciding on contact with parents.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning a Family Court order mandating three weekly face-to-face contact visits between a 3½-year-old child (T) and her mother.
- •The order was opposed by the Local Authority and Children's Guardian due to serious allegations of sexual abuse against the mother and her former partner (Mr. A).
- •T exhibited distress during initial video calls with her mother, referring to her mother as 'naughty'.
- •The Local Authority sought to restrict contact to weekly video calls, supported by a social worker's statement highlighting T's distress.
- •The Family Court Judge ordered twice-weekly face-to-face contact, despite the Local Authority's application to restrict contact and concerns about T's welfare.
Legal Principles
A court must prioritize a child's welfare when making contact orders.
Children Act 1989, section 1(1)
Local authorities have a duty to promote contact between a child and their parents unless it's not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, Schedule 2, paragraph 15
Recitals in court orders should be concise and not include purported views of the court that weren't part of the decision.
President’s Memorandum on ‘Drafting Orders’ (November 2021) and ‘House Rules’ supporting Standard Family Orders (May 2023)
Contact orders should not destabilize or endanger arrangements for the child.
Re B (Care: Contact: Local Authority’s plans) [1993] 1 FLR 543 at 551
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The Family Court Judge failed to conduct a proper welfare review, improperly treated recitals as orders, and disregarded T's distress and the serious allegations of abuse.
The Family Court's order for direct contact was set aside.
The decision was deemed premature and did not adequately consider T's welfare, particularly given her distress and the serious allegations against her mother.
The case was remitted to a different judge for urgent consideration of interim contact and case management.
To ensure a proper welfare assessment and appropriate contact arrangements are made.