The child’s welfare is the Court’s paramount consideration in deciding whether an EPO should be made and the Court must not make the Order unless doing so would be better for the child than making no Order at all.
In exercising its discretion, the Court must consider:
- Why it is necessary to remove the child as a matter of urgency;
- Whether there is any alternative way of protecting the child, for example by the alleged abuser or person who is alleged to be putting the child at risk, leaving the child’s home;
- Whether the child’s removal can be achieved with the co-operation of their carers
An EPO should be the last and not the first resort due to its serious consequences for the child and the Order should be both necessary and proportionate and the least interventionist solution consistent with the child’s immediate safety.
Even if an EPO is granted it is still necessary for the Local Authority to decide whether the child actually needs to be removed to secure his or her safety and, if removed, then reasonable contact should normally be allowed provided it can be safely managed. If a child is removed, then the child should be returned once it becomes safe to do so, even if that is before the EPO would otherwise end.
The maximum period for which an EPO can be granted is 8 days including the day on which the Order is made and there is no right of appeal against an EPO being refused or being granted.
Where an EPO is granted, a parent may only apply for its discharge in very limited circumstances and not at all if the parent was given notice of the Application and was present at the EPO Hearing.
In many cases, irrespective of whether an EPO is granted or not, a Local Authority is likely to go on to issue care proceedings in relation to the child.
