A-M (Children)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 2 April 2014, Judge Harington ruled on a mother's contact with her two children and imposed a section 91(14) restriction order under the Children Act 1989. The mother appealed this reduction in contact. The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside Judge Harington’s order, and remitted the question of contact to the Family Court for a rehearing before a different judge. The court underscored the necessity of thorough evaluation of contact session records and clear judicial reasoning in such decisions.
Judgment
Black LJ:
This case concerns a decision made by His Honour Judge Harington on 2 April 2014 about a mother’s contact with her daughter who is 13 years old (I) and her son (H) who is 11 years old and the imposition of a restriction under section 91(14) Children Act 1989 on the mother making further applications in relation to the children for 2 years. The case turns entirely on its own facts and no question of principle arises.
The parties
The children are parties to the litigation. Their interests are looked after by NYAS who have been involved in the case since 2009. The current NYAS caseworker took over in April 2010. Mr Worlock of counsel is instructed on the children’s behalf.
The parents both act in person. The mother has the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, Mr O’Connell, who attended the appeal hearing with her. The father was unable to attend and instead made written submissions. He was not disadvantaged by not being present in court as his position was set out clearly in his submissions. Furthermore, given that he and NYAS were aligned in opposing the appeal, Mr Worlock’s oral submissions furthered the father’s case as well as the children’s.
The outcome of the appeal
At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, we announced our decision, reserving our reasons to be given later in writing.
Our decision was to allow the appeal, to set aside Judge Harington’s order, and to direct that the question of contact be remitted to the Family Court for rehearing before a circuit judge other than Judge Harington, anticipating that there would be a directions hearing promptly in preparation for that rehearing. NYAS are to appoint a new caseworker. This will mean that there can be a completely fresh look at this case which is not at all easy.
The mother raised no objection to there being a restriction under section 91(14) preventing her making further applications in relation to the children’s residence for a period of two years and we made such an order. It is important that everyone understands that for the foreseeable future, to all intents and purposes, this concludes the question of the children’s residence which is with their father. The question of whether there should be a wider section 91(14) order will be determined at the rehearing.
The purpose of this judgment is to explain why we took this course in relation to the appeal. Because there will be a rehearing of the contact issue, I intend to keep it very short in order that I do not stra