P-S (Children)

Judgment

Lord Justice Thorpe:

On 9 October 2008 HHJ Michael Taylor, sitting in Newcastle, had before him an application for an interim care order in respect of five children of the mother. They are respectively J1, who is 11; C, who is 8; D, 6; J2, 3; and R, 2. The application was brought by the Northumberland County Council and resisted by the mother in particular. There had been indications from the judge at the trial stage that he was not minded to remove any of the five on an interim basis, but there had been developments in the two or three days before the 9 th which caused concern. He heard extensive submissions from the parties represented over the course of the 9 th and reserved his judgment to enable him to reflect overnight and to announce his conclusion at 2.00pm on the following day. In his judgment he decided that the mother could cope in the interim with the three elder children, but that leaving all five with her was setting her up to fail, and that the wisest course was to remove the two younger children to foster care during the interlocutory stages of the case. There were specific areas of concern in relation to those two younger children.

The essential reasoning of the judge is to be found in paragraphs 26 and 29, where he explains that, in his words:

“I think this is a case for partial removal. I am satisfied that there is a real risk of harm to the two younger children. I think mother is over-stretched. I think that the breakdown of her relationship with [CP … has left her without some support].”

And then in paragraph 29 he says:

“Therefore, given those circumstances, I think that mother can cope in the relative short term whilst enquiries are carried out with the three elder at home. I think if she has to have [the two younger] at the same time whilst the assessments are going on and leading up to the hearing […], I fear her prospects at the hearing will be less good than they will be if she is caring for the three of them. If she can successfully demonstrate over the next months that she can care properly [with the three elder children], it will put her in a stronger position to seek the return of the other two children to her care.”

The application for permission was brought to this court and was the subject of a very recent direction by Wall LJ for listing on notice, with appeal to follow if permission were granted. That order recognised that there had been substantial developments in the court below in the interim,