The local authority applied for a care order in respect of a young baby. The mother was only 15 and was a ‘child’ herself.
Held: In an application under 34(4) the interests of the child who is the subject of the application are paramount, and precede those of the mother, even if she herself is a child. Section 34(3) enabled the court to ‘make such order as it considers appropriate with respect to the contact which is to be allowed between the child and that person’. Lord Slynn of Hadley: ‘For this purpose, ‘the child’ is the child in care in respect of whom an order is sought by one of the four categories of person. That child is the subject matter of the application. The question to be determined relates to that child’s upbringing and it is that child’s welfare which must be the court’s paramount consideration. The fact that the parent is also a child does not mean that both parent’s and child’s welfare is paramount and that each has to be balanced against the other.’
Judges:
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn, Lord Hadley, Lord Woolf
Citations:
Independent 07-Jan-1994, Gazette 09-Feb-1994, Times 17-Dec-1993, [1993] UKHL 9
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) CA 1993
An application was made by the local authority to take into care the daughter of a 15 year old mother. The question was whether any priority was to be given to the daughter’s interests when the mother herself was also a child.
Held: When the . .
Cited by:
Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Appealed to – Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) CA 1993
An application was made by the local authority to take into care the daughter of a 15 year old mother. The question was whether any priority was to be given to the daughter’s interests when the mother herself was also a child.
Held: When the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78416
