Key Facts
- •Appeal against a transfer of residence order made on June 5, 2024 by HHJ Williscroft.
- •Two boys, aged 10.5 and nearly 8, involved.
- •Parents separated in January 2020; children lived with mother.
- •Father's contact with children problematic due to mother's alleged interference.
- •Father applied for an enforcement order in March 2024.
- •Parenting assessment recommended transfer of residence to father.
- •Guardian applied for an interim care order without informing parents.
- •Order made for immediate transfer of children to father.
- •Mother and father unrepresented at the hearing.
- •Mother deprived of crucial documents before the hearing.
Legal Principles
Parents must have a proper opportunity to prepare and argue their cases.
Case law and inherent fairness.
Orders removing children require proper notice, except in cases of serious physical or sexual harm.
Case law and Children Act 1989.
Even with risk of emotional harm, summary removal is not justified without considering alternatives.
Judge's interpretation of the facts and legal principles.
Court must consider alternatives before making a draconian order like transfer of residence.
Judge's interpretation of the facts and principles of fairness.
When dealing with unrepresented parents, the court should explain their rights.
Judge's interpretation of the principles of fairness and procedural justice.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Unfair procedure; inadequate opportunity to prepare and argue case; questionable decision-making.
Interim care order set aside.
Procedure was unfair and did not justify the order.
Week-about shared care arrangement ordered.
Balances father's concerns with mother's willingness to share care; maintains progress made.
Matter to be reviewed by Lieven J on July 22.
Further assessment needed before final order.