CH suffered injury, and a care order was sought, with rehabilitation a possibility. The guardian wanted adoption. In the absence of a paediatric psychiatric report, the judge approved the care plan and gave directions that a child psychiatrist should be informed on placement. The Guardian was not allowed to call his witnesses, and he appealed, saying the court should only make a decision with material information.
Held: His appeal was allowed, and an interim order substituted. A care plan could not be approved without completing the due requirements of court procedures. If the expert evidence was not adequate, a final order should not be made. Even if a care order appeared inevitable, the court consider the merits fully. Here, the Judge should not have made the final order when he did not have all the relevant expert evidence and where there remained a divergence of opinion between the Guardian and local authority.
Citations:
[1998] 1 FLR 403
Statutes:
Citing:
Approved – In Re J (Minors) (Care: Care Plan) FD 1994
The judge had found that the threshold criteria in section 31 had been met, but the authority changed the care plan immediately before the final hearing. The guardian now appealed a final order, having proposed an interim order.
Held: Once the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.228014