Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Children - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
In re JS (A Minor) (Wardship: Boy Soldier) [1990] Fam 182
1990

Hollis J
Children, Armed Forces
The Court considered the procedures for when a 17 year old a boy soldier who had gone absent without leave and returned home to his parents. He had been due to go to Iraq. His mother sought an order for wardship. Held: The Court struck out wardship proceedings. It could not restrain the action.
Hollis J said: "It would obviously, I think, be inappropriate and, I consider, contrary to policy to continue the wardship on the facts of this case, however sympathetic one might be towards the ward, and indeed his parents . .
From what I have gleaned from the facts of this case, it may be in neither the minor's best interest nor in the interests of the public, that he remain a member of the Army, but that is not a matter for me to decide."
1 Citers


 
In re W (A Minor) (Adoption Agency: Wardship) [1990] Fam 156
1990


Children, Adoption
The court considered the requirments for adoption of a child subject to wardship.
1 Citers


 
Re M (A Minor) (Disclosure of Material) [1990] 2 FLR 36
1990
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ, Lloyd and Nicholls LJJ
Children, Litigation Practice
A child was made subject of wardship application after her half sister made allegations of sexual abuse against their father. In dealing with these proceedings, he sought disclosure of the records prepared by the social workers in the first case. He now appealed against a refusal of an order for their production. Held: The father's appeal failed. In general, such discovery is inappropriate, but the automatic refusal of such requests should be reconsidered. In an appropriate wardship case, a Family Division judge has the power to order the local authorities social workers' records about a child. To hold otherwise would deprive parties of a proper recourse to legal action. The court might first need himself to inspect such records to assist any decision about whether they might assist.
Butler-Sloss LJ said: "On the application of a party to the proceedings for disclosure of relevant documents the judge has a duty to weigh up competing public interests . . It is for the court on the application to decide whether the public interest in protecting the social work records overrides the public interest that the party to the proceedings should obtain the information he or she is seeking in order to obtain legal redress." and
"For my part, I consider that the strict approach developed in 1970 and followed in subsequent decisions must be relaxed in the light of the current legislation and modern opinion about greater openness in society. The DHSS issued guide-lines on the rights of access of the subject of social work files who had been in care in a series of directives from 1983. The Access to Personal Files Act 1987, which gives rights to access to certain documents, is another pointer in the same direction. The law of evidence must move with the times. None of this invalidates the general principle of public interest immunity, but it will undoubtedly have an effect on the balancing operation to be conducted by the judge."
1 Citers


 
Bradford City Metropolitan Council v K (Minors) [1990] Fam 140
1990

Otton J
Children

1 Citers


 
In Re W (Minors) (Wardship: Evidence) [1990] 1 FLR 203
1990
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ, Neill LJ
Children
A wardship was applied for after allegations of sexual abuse. Butler-Sloss LJ said "It is not necessary to make a finding of sexual abuse against a named person in order for the judge to assess the risks to the child of returned to that environment. He is engaged in a different exercise, that of the assessment of the possibilities for the future."
Neill LJ said: "There may also be cases, however, where the court may not be in a position to make a positive finding on the evidence as to what has happened in the past, but may nevertheless come to the conclusion that a child may be at risk for the future."
1 Citers


 
Re K (A Minor) (Ward: Care and Control) [1990] 1 WLR 431
1990
CA
Fox LJ, Waite J
Children
Waite J said: "The speeches in the House of Lords make it plain that the term 'parental right' is not there used in a proprietary sense, but rather as describing the right of every child, as part of its general welfare, to have the ties of nature maintained, wherever possible, with the parents who gave it life." but "Are there any compelling factors which require me to override the prima facie right of this child to an upbringing by its surviving natural parent?"
1 Citers


 
Regina v Harrow London Borough Council ex parte D [1990] Fam 133
1990

Butler-Sloss LJ
Local Government, Children
The court discussed the legal status of the Child Protection Register. Butler-Sloss LJ: "The case conference has a duty to make an assessment as to abuse and the abuser, if sufficient information is available. Of its nature, the mechanism of the case conference leading to the decision to place names on the register and the decision-making process, is unstructured and informal. It is accepted by Mr Scrivener that it is not a judicial process. It is part of a protection package for a child believed to have been the victim of abuse. Unlike other areas of judicial review, the considerations are not limited to the individual who may have been prejudiced and the tribunal or organisation being criticised. In this field, unusually, there is a third component of enormous importance – the welfare of the child which is the purpose of the entry in the register. In proceedings in which the child is the subject, his or her welfare is paramount.
In balancing adequate protection for the child and fairness to an adult, the interest of an adult may have to be placed second to the needs of the child. All concerned in this difficult and delicate area should be allowed to perform their task without looking over their shoulder all the time for the possible intervention of the court." and
"The nature of the information recorded, the machinery by which it has been inserted and the limited purpose for which it is included must be recognised. Having said that, I do not consider such an entry is in any way a finding of fact, even less a finding of guilt, nor should it be seen as such."
1 Citers



 
 Brown v Matthews; CA 1990 - [1990] Ch 662
 
In re M and N (Minors) (Wardship: Publication of Information) [1990] Fam 211
1990
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ
Children, Media
The court considered whether to order that a child's name be not published where the decision to publish would not affect the way in which the child is cared for, the child's welfare is relevant but not paramount and must be balanced against freedom of expression. The court's jurisdiction does not extend to "injunctive protection of children from publicity which though inimicable to their welfare is not directed at them or those who care for them". Butler-Sloss LJ said: 'in this situation the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration'. As to the evidence required to support a request for an injunction: "It has also been suggested that the evidence to be presented to the judge, at least on the inter partes hearing, should include specific evidence of, for instance, psychological harm likely to be caused to the child by the publication proposed. Again, in my view, that is a misconception, both of the function of and the experience of those sitting in the Family Division. In In re X that evidence was available and rightly did not sway the decision. The evidence of child psychiatrists is invaluable in many of the difficult decisions to be made in child cases. In my view, it is not normally necessary in order to assist a judge in balancing the welfare of the child and the right to publish and whether the child and others in the proceedings should or should not be identified"."
1 Citers


 
Re G; Re R Note (Wards) (Police Interviews) [1990] 2 FLR 347
19 Mar 1990
FD
Sir Stephen Brown P
Police, Children
Sir Stephen Brown P gave judgment in a case in which the police sought permission, which was granted, to administer cautions to two wards of court. Held: He said: "There is, therefore, no difficulty over the granting of leave in these two cases. However, the occasion has prompted the Commissioner to seek clarification of the appropriate procedure to be followed by the police generally in cases involving minors who are wards of court . . The problem which is perceived by the Commissioner relates to the duties of the police which arise when they arrest a minor who turns out to be a ward of court. The Registrar's Direction of 18 July 1988 [1988] 2 FLR 260 endeavoured to give guidance and instructions in circumstances where it becomes necessary for the police to seek to interview a child who is a ward of court either as a potential witness or as a victim of a crime or more particularly as a suspect. The Direction sought to take into account the practical difficulties arising where as a matter of urgency it was necessary that the police should take immediate action . . However, I am told that the police are still in doubts as to what their duties are in relation to a minor who in fact is a ward whom they wish to investigate for alleged complicity in a crime, that is to say, to interview him as a suspect. It is strongly contended on behalf of the police that there ought not to be any special requirement laid upon them in those circumstances over and beyond the duties which are laid down as of general application to juveniles by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
I would seek at this stage, pending further consideration of the general position relating to the interviewing of wards, to assist by stating the position so far as the police are concerned when they wish to interview a suspect or a victim who is in fact a ward. In the majority of cases there will be no time, in any event, to seek the court's leave before the interviewing of a minor in such circumstances. Provided that the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 with regard to juveniles are complied with, the duty upon the police is discharged. They have no extra duty to perform. There is, of course, a duty upon those having the care of the minor to inform the court at the earliest practical opportunity of what has taken, place, but there is no further duty upon the police themselves in those circumstances. At this stage I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to be thought to amend, as it were, the Practice Directions dealing with the interviewing of wards. It is my intention that the whole matter should be considered in the light of the representations and submissions which have been made to me today and I have indicated to counsel for the Official Solicitor and to counsel for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that it would be helpful if representations were to be made administratively to me identifying the particular difficulties which are perceived at present. It is clear that there are misunderstandings and I am assured that the police are anxious fully and properly to discharge their duties. They are anxious for assistance in order to make their position clear. Accordingly, I do not propose to give an instant 'Practice Direction' at this stage. I make it clear for their assistance that when they arrest a minor who in fact is a ward then they may properly proceed to interview him in accordance with their normal procedure provided of course that they comply with the provisions relating to all juveniles under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It will then be for the person having charge of the minor to notify the court of what is taking place or has taken place.
It must be remembered, however, that the status of wardship is important and because the court is involved its interest cannot be overlooked. The court must maintain its authority over the minor and over significant events which affect the minor. It is for that reason that I believe the matter should be further considered so that a satisfactory overall direction may be given. It is probably desirable for the sake of clarity that the position of a ward as a suspect or potential defendant should be dealt with separately from that of a ward whom it is desired to interview for other purposes, for example, as a witness. I will, therefore, take time for consultation and consideration. In due course, I hope that a further Practice Direction may be issued which will clarify the matters which are at present giving rise to concern. For the moment, however, I wish to make it clear that the court cannot relieve the police or any other person from the general duty of seeking the leave or consent of the court before taking steps which significantly affect the life of a ward of court.
That is the fundamental position, but where a suspect is arrested, then it seems appropriate that I should make it clear that the police should not be inhibited from following their normal procedures with regard to such a person. That is all that I propose to say at this stage while indicating that the matter will receive further consideration with a view to giving directions in an appropriate form in due course."
1 Citers



 
 In re J (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody rights); HL 1-Jul-1990 - [1990] 2 AC 562; Times, 31 July 1990; [2005] 3 WLR 14
 
Re R (A Minor) (Experts' Evidence) [1990] EWHC Fam 1; [1991] 1 FLR 291; [1991] Fam Law 303
27 Jul 1990
FD
Cazalet J
Children, Litigation Practice
The court gave a general indication of the criteria which are applicable to the preparation of the reports of expert witnesses to be called in child cases.
[ Bailii ]
 
C (A Minor), Re [1990] EWCA Civ 9
24 Aug 1990
CA

Children
Appeal against order for residence of child with mother with reasonable access for father.
[ Bailii ]

 
 In re J (a Minor) (Wardship: Medical treatment); CA 1-Oct-1990 - (1991) Fam 33; [1990] 3 All ER 930; [1991] 2 WLR 140; Times, 03 October 1990; [1992] 1 FLR
 
M v M Unreported, 8 October 1990
8 Oct 1990
FD
Butler-Sloss P
Children

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 12
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.