Judge wrong to ban mum seeing children, Court of Appeal rules

The woman was not allowed to visit her children because they could not be "expected to socially distance"

A mother was wrongly banned from seeing her three children after lockdown, Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

They were taken into council care in 2019 pending legal proceedings, and until March they saw their mother three times a week during supervised visits.

After lockdown began, she was only allowed to see her children on video calls and in June her application for a "contact order" was dismissed.

The woman appealed against the dismissal and is now able to meet them.

The youngsters, aged seven, three and one-and-a-half, were put into "interim" Nottingham City Council care in September after the youngest child was found to have a leg fracture, appeal judges said.

A hearing about their welfare is due to take place in November.

Court of Appeal judges have upheld the woman's appeal to be able to visit her children again

When lockdown started, council social services bosses decided face-to-face meetings were no longer possible because the children could not be "expected to socially distance themselves from their mother".

In June, after government guidance changed to allow "social bubbles", the woman asked Judge Jeremy Lea, who hears family court cases in Nottingham, to be able to spend time with her children but the application was dismissed.

• Latest news and stories from the East Midlands

In the ruling published on Tuesday, judges upheld the woman's appeal and suggested Judge Lea should have considered more evidence before dismissing the contact order.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Carr, said the issue had "wider importance".

"In this case, as in others like it, there is no doubt that face-to-face contact would be in the children's interests if it could be achieved," said Lord Justice Jackson.

He said "unfortunately, the decision in this case did not grapple with" basic information about the children's situation, the local authority's resources and the current government guidance.

He said while "practical challenges" might mean less contact was appropriate, evidence before Judge Lea did not support a "no face-to-face contact at all" conclusion.