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 upbringing of both mother and daughter was involved under the Act, section 1(1) was engaged also for the mother: ‘So the question of contact between R (the baby) and M (the mother) relates to the upbringing of each of them and in each case the Act requires that their welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. But this is an impossibility. ‘Paramount’ means ‘above all others in rank, order or jurisdiction; supreme’ – see the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edn.) On one and the same issue, contact between them, M’s welfare cannot rank above R’s welfare and his above hers . . I can think of no reason why Parliament should have intended, when a question with respect to the upbringing of two children is before the court, that the court should regard one child’s interests as paramount to that of the other. Accordingly, in my judgment, while the welfare of M and R, taken together is to be considered as paramount to the interests of any adults concerned in their lives, as between themselves the court must approach the question of their welfare without giving one priority over the other. You start with an evenly balanced pair of scales. Of course, when you start to put into the scales the matters relevant to each child – and in particular those listed in s 1(3) – the result may come down in favour of one rather than the other, but that is a balancing exercise which the court is well used to conducting in cases concerning children.
Judges:
Balcombe LJ, Kennedy LJ and Evans LJ
Citations:
[1993] 1 FLR 883
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) and Others HL 16-Dec-1993
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v H (A Minor) and Others HL 16-Dec-1993
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.213651