Click the case name for better results:

Re G: 2003

The mother was addicted to drugs. Whilst the grandmother was in hospital, the authority referred G’s case because of concerns at G’s development. An order freeing her for adoption was made. The grandmother sought an assessment under s38. Held: The grandmother’s appeal failed. Her arguments presumed that she would have been the primary carer not … Continue reading Re G: 2003

In re B (Interim care order: Directions): CA 14 Jan 2002

The local authority applied for an interim care order immediately the child, B, was born. A proposal was made for the mother and child to move from the maternity hospital to a residential placement a mother and baby home which provided help in improving parents’ child care skills. The local authority was not prepared to … Continue reading In re B (Interim care order: Directions): CA 14 Jan 2002

Re I and E (Residential Assessment Order): CA 1997

Gilliat C, the child was the subject of proceedings. There were five other children, the authority had concerns about her abilities, and the father was a Schedule 1 sex offender. Two children exhibited sexualised and abusive behaviour at school. The court had previously ordered removal of the boys for assessment. Further orders were made for … Continue reading Re I and E (Residential Assessment Order): CA 1997

In re G (a Child) (Interim Care order: Residential assessment): CA 27 Jan 2004

An elder child had died, and the local authority felt unable to exculpate either the father or the mother. On the birth of this child all three had been brought in for a residential assessment. First one then another extension was sought. The court found that this service had become therapeutic rather than for assessment, … Continue reading In re G (a Child) (Interim Care order: Residential assessment): CA 27 Jan 2004

Re C (A child): CA 2002

A family residential assessment was considered. A residential hospital assessment was recommended, but the authority proposed a less expensive local assessment. The parents sought an order under section 38(6) for the recommended assessment. The judge thought the recommended option preferable, but ordered the local assessment out of considerations of cost. Held: The parents’ appeal was … Continue reading Re C (A child): CA 2002

Sheffield City Council v V; Legal Services Commission intervening: FD 23 Jun 2006

The court set out the criteria to be used when ordering payment by the council of the costs of a residential assessment ordered during care proceedings. Citations: Times 25-Aug-2006 Statutes: Children Act 1989 38(6) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children, Local Government, Legal Aid Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.244693

Berkshire County Council v C and others: QBD 1993

Care proceedings were commenced in respect of two children. The court directed the local authority to carry out an assessment which would require in effect the full time attention of a social worker, the child having been taken into care. The authority replied that it would undertake the assessment but that there would be a … Continue reading Berkshire County Council v C and others: QBD 1993

B County Council v L and Others: FD 2002

Whilst under assessment before consideration of a final order, the mother said she had hurt her older child. The hospital was unable to provide 24 hour supervision, and the assessment was terminated. The parents sought an order for an assessment at an alternative hospital. Held: If the assessment was necessary, it was not correct to … Continue reading B County Council v L and Others: FD 2002

Re CH (Care or Interim Care Order): 1998

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, … Continue reading Re CH (Care or Interim Care Order): 1998

In Re M (Interim Care Order: Assessment): CA 2 Jan 1996

There was no jurisdiction under section 38(6) to order residential assessment of a family involved in care proceedings. The words ‘other assessment of the child’ had to be construed as ejusdem generis with the words ‘medical or psychiatric examination’. It was importance that the subsection only refers to the examination or assessment ‘of the child’ … Continue reading In Re M (Interim Care Order: Assessment): CA 2 Jan 1996

Re B (Psychiatric Therapy for Parents): 1999

On the birth of their fourth child, the three older children having removed and adopted, the authority obtained psychiatric reports for the parents and applied for a further care order. One report offered treatment over two years, the other doubted whether rehabilitation was possible. The Guardian’s expert’s report suggest possible treament leading to rehabilitiation within … Continue reading Re B (Psychiatric Therapy for Parents): 1999

M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council: CA 14 Mar 2006

The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local authorities to provide ‘secure accommodation’ for arrested juveniles whom they are requested to receive under … Continue reading M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council: CA 14 Mar 2006

Lambeth London Borough Council v S and C and V and J and Legal Services Commission: FD 3 May 2005

The council brought care proceedings. A residential assessment was to be ordered. The Council sought an order for the respondent mother who was legally aided to bear a portion of the cost of the assessment. The Legal Services Commission intervened to object to any order to pay any contribution to the costs. Held: An assessment … Continue reading Lambeth London Borough Council v S and C and V and J and Legal Services Commission: FD 3 May 2005

In re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption): CA 1 May 2008

The father sought to revoke a freeing order. He said that the social workers had conspired to exclude him from the process. The child was born of a casual relationship, and at first he was unaware of the proceedings. On learning of them he sought to revoke the placement order. Aware that they were doing … Continue reading In re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption): CA 1 May 2008

In re L: CA 1996

In exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, the court’s function is investigative and non-adversarial. Ward LJ: the court had no power to order a residential assessment at a specified place. Millett LJ agreed, but said that a judge could impose ‘a . .