Justice For Families

I am aware of what an EPO is and the many case laws that exist.

However can an EPO be served on someone who has contact with a child and with whom a child does NOT reside?

44 Orders for emergency protection of children

(1) Where any person (“the applicant”) applies to the court for an order to be made under this section with respect to a child, the court may make the order if, but only if, it is satisfied that—

(a) there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if—

(i) he is not removed to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the applicant; or

(ii) he does not remain in the place in which he is then being accommodated;

(b) in the case of an application made by a local authority—

(i) enquiries are being made with respect to the child under section 47(1)(b); and

(ii) those enquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access and that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access to the child is required as a matter of urgency; or

(c) in the case of an application made by an authorised person—

(i) the applicant has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm;

(ii) the applicant is making enquiries with respect to the child’s welfare; and

(iii) those enquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access and the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access to the child is required as a matter of urgency.

(2) In this section—

(a) “authorised person” means a person who is an authorised person for the purposes of section 31; and

(b) “a person authorised to seek access” means—

(i) in the case of an application by a local authority, an officer of the local authority or a person authorised by the authority to act on their behalf in connection with the enquiries; or

(ii) in the case of an application by an authorised person, that person.

(3) Any person—

(a) seeking access to a child in connection with enquiries of a kind mentioned in subsection (1); and

(b) purporting to be a person authorised to do so,

shall, on being asked to do so, produce some duly authenticated document as evidence that he is such a person.

(4) While an order under this section ( “an emergency protection order”) is in force it—

(a) operates as a direction to any person who is in a position to do so to comply with any request to produce the child to the applicant;

(b) authorises—

(i) the removal of the child at any time to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the applicant and his being kept there; or

(ii) the prevention of the child’s removal from any hospital, or other place, in which he was being accommodated immediately before the making of the order; and

(c) gives the applicant parental responsibility for the child.

(5) Where an emergency protection order is in force with respect to a child, the applicant—

(a) shall only exercise the power given by virtue of subsection (4)(b) in order to safeguard the welfare of the child;

(b) shall take, and shall only take, such action in meeting his parental responsibility for the child as is reasonably required to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child (having regard in particular to the duration of the order); and

(c) shall comply with the requirements of any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.

(6) Where the court makes an emergency protection order, it may give such directions (if any) as it considers appropriate with respect to—

(a) the contact which is, or is not, to be allowed between the child and any named person;

(b) the medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment of the child.

(7) Where any direction is given under subsection (6)(b), the child may, if he is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision, refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment.

(8) A direction under subsection (6)(a) may impose conditions and one under subsection (6)(b) may be to the effect that there is to be—

(a) no such examination or assessment; or

(b) no such examination or assessment unless the court directs otherwise.

(9) A direction under subsection (6) may be—

(a) given when the emergency protection order is made or at any time while it is in force; and

(b) varied at any time on the application of any person falling within any class of person prescribed by rules of court for the purposes of this subsection.

(10) Where an emergency protection order is in force with respect to a child and—

(a) the applicant has exercised the power given by subsection (4)(b)(i) but it appears to him that it is safe for the child to be returned; or

(b) the applicant has exercised the power given by subsection (4)(b)(ii) but it appears to him that it is safe for the child to be allowed to be removed from the place in question,

he shall return the child or (as the case may be) allow him to be removed.

(11) Where he is required by subsection (10) to return the child the applicant shall—

(a) return him to the care of the person from whose care he was removed; or

(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, return him to the care of—

(i) a parent of his;

(ii) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(iii) such other person as the applicant (with the agreement of the court) considers appropriate.

(12) Where the applicant has been required by subsection (10) to return the child, or to allow him to be removed, he may again exercise his powers with respect to the child (at any time while the emergency protection order remains in force) if it appears to him that a change in the circumstances of the case makes it necessary for him to do so.

(13) Where an emergency protection order has been made with respect to a child, the applicant shall, subject to any direction given under subsection (6), allow the child reasonable contact with—

(a) his parents;

(b) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him;

(c) any person with whom he was living immediately before the making of the order;

(d) any person in whose favour a contact order is in force with respect to him;

(e) any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 34; and

(f) any person acting on behalf of any of those persons.

(14) Wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so, an emergency protection order shall name the child; and where it does not name him it shall describe him as clearly as possible.

(15) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs any person exercising the power under subsection (4)(b) to remove, or prevent the removal of, a child.

(16) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (15) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

It seems that the answer is "yes", though I think it's going to be a hard order to get if there is no history of the child not being returned in the past. Further if there are no issues concerning the child's welfare, I can imagine the EPO harder to get.

So.... the theoretical answer is "yes" but the practical answer is more likely to be "no" because an EPO is a last resort and other orders should be considered before an EPO is applied.

I would struggle to see how Section 1 (c) iii can apply if you don't have care of the children.

Interesting.......however contact is as ordered by the court - there is no frequency or regularity to it so the court could order no contact or get contact limited or with some restrictions rather than the LA take out an EPO surely?

Why would you want an EPO to remove a child from someone with whom they do not reside.

Other orders to consider:
1. A contact order - saying who can (and can't) see the child, where, when and under what supervision, if any;
2. A care, or interim care, order which can also include an exclusion clause preventing contact with a named individual;
3. A prohibitive steps order preventing a named individual from undertaking certain actions, for example contacting the child.

Remember the law says that an EPO is a drastic measure and should only be used when the child is at risk of immediate harm. I can't see a judge issuing one in a case where the child is not resident - there are plenty of other options available.

Thank you - that is exactly and precisley what my line of thought is.....

A judge mentioned it in a case recently - I heard it with my own ears that "if the local authority are concerned about child's contact with the father then I'm sure they will apply for an emergency protection order".

However the father's contact is as prescribed by the court, with no frequency or regularity. He just turns up at the next hearing (dispute been going on years) and waits for the judge to order contact. So if there is no contact between hearings - then how on earth can the LA apply for an EPO?

Even if the father was a danger to his child which I can assure you he is not, then as you suggest keepittogether and I agree - contact would not be ordered or ordered with restrictions. An EPO would be the least likely order I would have thought...

Thanks very much though x

Could the EPO not be taken out of context?

IF the LA have concerns....they can apply for an EPO...meaning that the LA can apply if they feel they need to.

The EPO comment being a reply to something said in court - possibly?

Yes it had crossed my mind - but just in the whole context of things it appeared to be mean't deadly seriously and something for the LA to consider.