T (Children), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the short-term living arrangements for three young children who had been residing with their father under interim care orders from 11 November 2022 to 7 July 2023. The local authority ("the LA") sought to sanction their intervention by emergency application to the Court following the children's removal from the father's care. An urgent hearing was held on 11 July 2023, where the Recorder ordered the children to be returned to the father. The LA, supported by the Children's Guardian, sought permission to appeal, which was granted by a single judge who ordered the children to remain in the care of the LA pending the appeal's determination.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Designated Family Judge for Cheshire and Merseyside to allocate a judge to conduct an urgent Further Case Management Hearing for re-listing the LA’s extant application. The interim order was continued, keeping the children in foster care pending rehearing.

Prior to the rehearing, the mother sought permission to appeal on different grounds related to her inability to engage fully with prior proceedings; this application was summarily dismissed as the relief sought had been addressed by the court’s directions.

The children, aged 5, nearly 4, and 2 years 9 months, were subject to care proceedings commenced in October 2022 due to concerns including domestic abuse exposure, parental substance misuse, and the mother’s mental health impacting her parenting capacity. Interim care orders were made in November 2022 for the children to remain with their father under supervised contact with the mother.

The LA repeatedly sought to remove the children from the father’s care due to concerns about his behaviour and alleged breaches of a "contract of expectations" restricting unsupervised contact and other interactions. Police referrals in March and July 2023 implicated the father in alleged incidents including assault and aggravated burglary, with the mother reporting concerns about drug debt and threats to the children’s safety.

Following these events, the LA applied for removal of the children into foster care and for placement orders. The Recorder refused the LA’s application on 11 July 2023 and ordered the children’s return to the father upon his release from police custody. The LA appealed this decision, leading to the current proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Recorder erred in failing to conduct a multifactorial assessment of all the available evidence, including police disclosures beyond CCTV footage, to determine the risk to the children.
2. Whether the Recorder was correct to refuse the LA’s application to continue the children’s removal from the father’s care pending the final hearing.
3. Whether the Recorder properly considered the implications of the parents’ alleged breaches of the "contract of expectations" and the possible risks to the children from unsupervised contact with the mother.

Arguments of the Parties

Local Authority's Arguments

• The Recorder was in error by relying predominantly on CCTV footage and failing to consider other police disclosure evidence that implicated the father in the aggravated burglary.
• The Recorder should have adopted an inquisitorial role to urgently evaluate the risk to the children, rather than deferring factual disputes to a final hearing.
• The evidence of drug misuse, dangerous associations, and breaches of the contact contract justified continued removal of the children from the father’s care.

Father's Arguments

• The Recorder made a clear finding that she could not identify the father as involved in the burglary incident on the CCTV footage, which justified refusal of the LA’s application.
• There was no trigger to undermine the risk analysis in the LA’s previously filed final care plan supporting the children remaining with the father.

Mother's Arguments

• Supports the appeal to achieve a fresh hearing, asserting the children are settled in foster care.
• Raised concerns about lack of legal representation and non-disclosure of police materials in prior proceedings.

Children's Guardian's Arguments

• Supports the LA’s appeal for a rehearing and continuation of the children’s removal from the father’s care pending final determination.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed that the Recorder made a clear finding based on the CCTV footage that she could not identify the father as involved in the burglary incident. This finding was not faulted given the visual evidence.

However, the court found that the Recorder failed to properly consider other significant evidence contained in police disclosures and intelligence that linked the father to the incident. The Recorder appeared to rely heavily on the CCTV footage and did not explicitly address or give reasons for rejecting the additional evidence, which was of sufficient substance to require explanation if disregarded.

The court noted the pressures on the Family Court and the ex tempore nature of the judgment but emphasized that the absence of reference to the detailed police information was a significant omission. The Recorder also did not address the implications of the parents’ breaches of the "contract of expectations," including the children’s reports of the mother’s unsupervised presence at the family home, which could pose risks.

The Recorder’s failure to take a comprehensive, multifactorial view of all evidence and to articulate the risk assessment adequately was a key deficiency. The court recognized the Recorder’s commendable efforts under difficult circumstances but concluded that a rehearing was necessary to properly evaluate the evidence and risks.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Recorder’s order that the children be returned to the father’s care pending final determination. The case was remitted for an urgent Further Case Management Hearing to re-list the LA’s application, with the children to remain in foster care in the interim.

The decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the children’s placement in foster care pending rehearing. No new legal precedent was established, but the judgment underscores the necessity for courts to consider all relevant evidence comprehensively and to provide clear reasoning when rejecting material evidence in care proceedings.