ON APPEAL FROM PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(HER HONOUR JUDGE JUDITH HUGHES QC)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE ETHERTON
|IN THE MATTER OF P (A CHILD)|
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court )
Ms Hine (instructed by LB Brent Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent, the Local Authority
Ms Fama (instructed by Shantilal Balakrishnan) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent, the Father
Ms Dixon (instructed by Deborah Baxter and Co) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent, M, by her Children's Guardian
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Thorpe:
"I am sceptical as to whether there is any real arguable merit but there is pressing need for finality."
"The issue before me is removal. I should only remove M on an interim basis if I am satisfied her safety is at risk (see Re B (Care Proceedings: Interim Care Order)  EWCA Civ 822.) Separation is only to be ordered if the child's safety including physical, emotional or psychological demands it."
"I have no confidence that a Refuge in which she is under 24 hour Supervision is the answer because that will inevitably end and may in fact not be able to prevent her leaving the establishment to do shopping or other matters while the baby remains in the premises."
Mr Twomey says that "inevitable end" carries supervision beyond the brief life of an interim care order. That is probably right, but it does not seem to me that it is a sufficiently substantial criticism. The judge's essential message in that sentence was that she could not be sure that even full supervision would be sufficient to protect this child.
Lord Justice Etherton:
Order: Application granted; Appeal dismissed.