Written and recordedby Safda Mahmood
Hello. Welcome, everybody, and delighted to welcome you to today's by psy session As of October 2000 and 17 this is looking at issues off contact in public child law cases. My name. Softer my mood on the solicitor on a lecturer. Now, in today's bites I session, and I'm going to be taking through somebody. Issues surrounding contact on removal, for example, in cases particularly public law will be looking at cases such as Reem on Data Coakley's NBC case. I would take techniques through emergency applications when we're looking at emergency protection orders. Fix on plenty position would contact there on that will then be looking at the position of contact with the Children in care, particularly care proceedings. Sections 34 on Chapter two, paragraph 15. There's also other provisions whereby we need to look at the situation where local thought his may wish to. Things are determinate contact, so we'll have a look at that discharging orders at the use of Section 19 1 17 for example, on also, we looked at the position with the position would place and tortas and also post adoption contact in that regard. Okay, Celestine, start with contact and remove. Or so this is firstly the case of Ri m. And this is where by Laissus Hume, uh, there's a case. We're by the local Fortier seeking to remove a child from print to care whether perhaps under an emergency protection order or say, an interim care order. This case, which is 2003 now, was handed down by Mr Justice Mumby as he was then on that this is where he's His lordship did say that in relation to the issues surrounding contact, particularly where, as in this case, the mother is breastfeeding Contact need to be led by needs of the family are not stunted by resources. So that was one of the key things that was being identified in this case. And then you've got the Kirk lease, NBC against s case contact in newborn babies. Just 2006 case on Dhere. Poldi J made it very clear that although in the case Lord Justice Mumby was stating that contact has been driven by needs of the family not stunted by resources, that doesn't mean that resources is, of course, a highly irrelevant factor. The practicalities of arranging contact does the ability to be up to supervise support. Contact clearly does have to be taking into account to constitute what's fair and reasonable in the circumstances. But it's very important to look at what is in fact needed on what's what's that, of course in the child's best interest in that regard. Onda therefore, His Lordship did make it very clear that one does have to look at the extent to which the quantum of contact would be likely to impose unreasonable bird inside on the foster cares abilities to sustain this on door the resources of the local authority. To facilitate this again, you can see quite an important issue that's being raised in that regard. Now, sometimes you find that local authorities will be pursuing on emergency protection order. This is these accord by Sections 44 45. Other Children act whereby they may well be seeking an order to the effect that unless the child is removed to accommodation provided Fordham or less a child remains where they currently are. The child is like to be suffering significant harm on, even though Mr Protection orders have a short lifespan in that day will last 4 to 8 days and may be extended on one occasion for further seven days. Issue of contact, of course, is a very significant point with that in mind and of course, a message protection orders will give the applicant parental responsibility in these circumstances, and one of the issues is at the position with contact. So in particularly got Section 44 subsection 13 of the Children Act, which provides that when the child is made subject to an anonymous A protection order than there is an obligation upon the applicant to ensure that the contact which he's arranged and taking place between the child under parent. His reason contact unless it's impracticable in the circumstances were going to be looking at what reasonable is shortly insofar as particularly looking at the position care proceedings so effectively, if the child is subject when the Mets a protection order, the local thought he's gone, too. I need to be in a position to maintain reason we contact between a child in the family, unless this is not considered desirable in the circumstances on sometimes it may be that the local thought it needs a specific order on one complain be made under Section 44 13 specifying what the contact is on what level of contact should be between a child and apparent in the circumstances. Okay, so let's then look at the position of contact with Children in care. Now. This is where we start with the fact that when local authorities are involved in bringing cape ceilings, it's very important for them to bury mind that the court is of course, going to need to look at first of foremost Threshold received a fresh older meant on the Section 31 subsection two for four Lord or 38 subsection two for an interim order. But then the court needs to go on and deal with issues over welfare. One of the key she's is one which relates to the matter off contact. Now, when it comes to contact in cases where the child is in care at the first key duty, Section 34 subsection one off the Children Act on display vies that were child is in the care of the local salty. The local authority show subject provision off both this section and also to duty under Section 22 3 a of the Children. That's a duty to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. So so, putting it another way where the charges in the care the local authority to local authority show subject is provisioned and a duty under Section 23 a allowed a child to have reasonable contact with the first of foremost a chance apparent, which would include apparent whether, say, the father doesn't doesn't have burnt responsibility, it wouldn't matter also any legal guardian of the child. Thirdly, where if there was a child Arrangements Order Enforce would respect your child Immediately before the cabled was made, the person who's favored a child arrangements order was specially find living with Andi fourthly, where immediately before the care order, if the person had care of the child by virtually in her jurisdiction of the High Court. So here in those four situations, the local thought he has a duty unless it's inconsistent with child's welfare. Toe allowed to try to have reason or contact with these four categories of persons, which likes includes apparent in these circumstances on the significance is, of course, to allow such contact, which he's felt reasonable into circumstances. What's reasonable, of course, is very much judged therefore by the circumstances So you're looking at, for example, dearest her child, for example, which is going to be key question. What is the level of risk that side apparent poses to a child on, which would then determine, to an extent what form of contact and frequency of contact takes place? Doesn't need to be supported doesn't mean to be supervised, for example, that can only indirect contact take place for now, for example, the court needs to look at the position with the particular circumstances. What do we know about the child's own circumstances? We Are they residing, for example, how far are they residing from where the compact is going to be taken place? That needs to be considered The age of a child, to an extent has to be considered. Also, what else is the child involved in? For example, if your child is of school age, if they are involved in many activities, that's called is lots off only a scope, of course, after school activities. And of course, that has to be weighed. Oppa's well, the court has to also bear in mind what the position is with demands and child as to who wants contact with them. So if the mother father separated, for example, they want contact separately, said of maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother. Want to contact on? Of course you have to look at the various demands to see us his wanting contact in the circumstances. So there's those factors also doesn't need to have to look at the care plan. Where is the local thought? Insofar as they care plan Are they ruled out parents how they've ruled out family members? Are they looking at purposely by way of adoption? Figures are put up, never bank on what level of contact that will be in the circumstances. So really, there is no kind of one size fits sword when it comes to contact. A lot depends on what's reasonable in the circumstances for the child, principally to see what's in their interests now is to position. I would contact on other persons, and this is where shattered to paragraph 15. Subsection one of the Children Act is particularly important. This provides that a local thought he has a duty under schedule two paragraph 15 subsection one, which is where the local thought he was, a general duty relation to any child. It's looking after, which includes a child in care to promote contact, unless it's not reason practical consistent with the other with the child's welfare to do so. And this is between a child under Charles parents, any person who is not apparent but who has parental responsibility for the child, any relative friend or the person connected with child and immediately before the care order was made. If there was an existing order by virtue of way, a party had custody OK of control of the child. So essentially the key category here, under subject to paragraph 15 is the friend relative or the person connected with the child. And you can see duty here is to promote contact between the child and that person unless it's not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child's welfare. So again you conceive. It's very important to bear that in mind Now. Sometimes you find that local authorities may in fact wish to terminate contact or may need to turn that contact, particularly in emergencies. And this is where Section 34 subsection six other Children act comes into play on. This allows for a local authority to refuse to allow contact persons under Section 31 subsection one such as the parent, for example, if they are satisfied that it's necessary to do so in order to safeguard Onda promote the child's welfare and the refusal they have to satisfy themselves is required as a matter of urgency. It does not last for more than seven days, so that's the criteria which didn't consider. So, for example, if contacts taking place between the child and say, parent on and say something occurs, said Apparent harms a child or some allegations made against apparent which places that child at rest in the contact needs be terminated there. And then then that's where Section 34 subsection six can come into play. But what if we contact? Did he stopped for what period of time can it be? And, as we said, 34 6 specifically provides for seven days in an emergency. In those circumstances, well, if the contact is be terminated beyond seven days or it's not an application, it's not case where the local authority of stop contacting emergency, but now they are seeking to stop contact. Then this is where, if they are seeking permission to do so on application would need to be made under section 34 subsection four off the Children and to disprove eyes that it l a c to terminate contact beyond seven days. Then that all thought he must have applied to the court for authority to do so on the local salty can apply in these circumstances for them to be given permission to refuse contact in these circumstances, the cold way up A number of issues here there were way up. For example, the reasons why the applications be made or look at the wealth of a child has been paramount, or look at the care plan. They look at a benefit of contact your child in the family member on just because, for example, local authorities, long term plans are that they may have decided to rule out parents as potential carers. This is not in itself a reason, of course, to enable a Section 34 order to me made indoor circumstances. A number of issues, like say, would need to be identified must local salty terminate contact. If a section 34 order is granted and simple answer is no, it merely authorizes the local authority to do so. This was made clear in the case of Re See Children, this 2000 and 12 case we're here do keep scenes. Local authority obtained on order in a Section 34 Subsection four, which led them to then refusing contact between the child between the father and the Children on the father had made in a public comments doing the contact which hey had felt acknowledge was harming the Children, which undermined the foster placement on the father. I'll get that The Section 34 4 order should be made only exceptionally. But a court said that in fact, a section 34 4 order is merely permissive. It's not an order from no contact and in fact, the court said that a Section 34 subsection four order empowers a local authority to stop contact. But it's not in order that there should be no contact, and it's possible under Section 34 subsection nine for 1/4 very discharge. Any order made under Section 34 4 on the application of various people, including local felt, the child and anybody else named in the order so disagreed, which in fact could potentially result in the permission border being set aside if needs be on one of the other aspects to bear in mind in this context is the position with discharging orders on this is where a case of retied this 1997 cases very useful we're here to court stated that if there is an application that's being made to discharge in order under Section 34 subsection 14 1 has to show that there has been some material change in circumstances before. The court will actually go on on discharge in order in the Section 34 subsection four on the local authority is not obliged to disclose the whereabouts of the child in cave. Local authorities reasonable grounds to believe that this unforgiving this information prejudice at the child's welfare. Sometimes you find that applications will be made by said apparent Children's guardian on behalf to charge to regulate contact, specifying what the level of contact should be, and this could be done by completing form C one and C 15. If it's the local thought of themselves that are seeking permission to refuse contact, then they would make the application by completing forms C one and C 14 In that regard Now, one of the other provisions is three. Use of section 9 2017 on display vies that if an application of the section 34 is refused, let's say, for example, the apparent is applying for defined order under Section 34 regulating contact then no further application may be made for a period of six months unless permission. But a court is given in farms and this is pursuing to Section 91. It's off section 17 of the Children act okay on. As I said, the court doesn't have any power to make in order that they shall not be any contact. It's the missive order that we mentioned in that regard. What's the position of making any substances warders relating to contact, for example, of the case management here and goddesses with a case of Ri P is quite useful on. But this is where the court did say that they do. Of course, the court does have extensive powers to make orders at the case manager hearing, which can include, if necessary, make in order for a permissive order for terminating contact, even at the case manager hearing in appropriate cases, and that can be done as long as, of course, people have had divide to a fair hearing in that regard. That then brings me onto the position placement orders. You'll be aware that placement order under Section 21 of the adoption Children in 2002 gives the adoption agency or thought to place the child with prospective doctors and may be chosen by the authority on. But this is where, if an adoption agencies authorised to place a child for adoption than any contact order under Section eight or a Children act, or in order under Section 34 short axes is to have any effect under the auspices off a placement order. But instead, an application can, in fact made to the court for an order for contact in the section 26 of the adoption Children off 2002 where the court can in fact make an order requiring the person with whom the child lives or used to live to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order. So, in fact, that could be done, and that dis application were made by the child any parent regarding on a relative when he person who had a child arrangements, order or anybody. News order. There was contact provision. Parts of placement ought to be made, so that is, of course, permissible. And finally, there's a position with contact post adoption and this is where three Children of Families Act of 2014 brought in the concept of post adoption contact. And this is under Section 50 Fun 51 a. Off the adoption and Children like 2002. So this was specifically brought in in 2000 and 14. This new section 51. A provision on that this provision is applicable when the court is making or has made on adoption order and effectively section 51 a, then allows the court to make in order to either at the point of which to make an adoption order. I want to meet time afterwards on the order coming made firstly required. A person who's favour the adoption order is always to be made to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order under section or for the person named in the order and the child, otherwise to have contact with each other. So that's the first thing it can do is almost regulating what level off contact is to be the frequency of contact or the Section 51. A order could be used in another context of this his way. It could be used for there to actually be no contact, so so it can affect you will be used prohibiting the person named in the order under a section from even having contact with the child so it could be used, like, say, in that context also. So the effective disorder in the section 51 a can take deformed enough, effectively making a no contact order or regularizing got to contact should between set apparent on the child at post adoption. Now the application for post adoption contact order under Section 51 a comer made either by a person who has applied for the adoption order or in whose favour the adoption Audrey's who has been made. It could also be applied for but a child, of course, truth through the legal representative. If to have sufficient understanding of maturity or any person who has obtained leaf off the court, make the applications of sometimes it may be that apparent he's seeking to make this application or so all right. So consider a number of issues that in relation to contact in public law cases, both in relation to modes of protection order cases when Children are subject care proceedings when we've got placement orders and also the position with when dealing with adoption on that post option hope has been a useful session for you. Can I thank you very much indeed for listening. And I speak to you next time. Thank you. Bye for now.
00:19:23
