Category: Children

In Re B and T (care proceedings: legal representation): CA 2001

Thorpe LJ said: ‘The assertion by Mr Miss Booth that art 6 obliged the judge to discontinue on either 12 June or, if not then, on 14 June, seems to me to be an unrealistic submission. In this jurisdiction the proceedings are not adversarial proceedings. The judge always holds an inquisitorial responsibility, It is his difficult task to maintain a balance between the rights of the children to an early determination of their future. The obligation of the judge to avoid delay is expressed in the statute. I cannot see that it could be said that this judge, supremely experienced in this field of work, fell into error in balancing the rights of the children to determination against the rights of the parents to a fair trial. It is not a case in which the parents were denied the opportunity to put their case. It is manifest that the judge endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to ensure that the received the support which is conventionally given by a judge and advocates to unrepresented litigants.
. . When one considers the requirements of art 6 of the Convention, it is relevant to remember that art 6 requires the entire proceedings to have been conducted on a fair basis. It is not appropriate simply to extract part of the process and look at that in isolation. In this case, as my Lord has said, there had been abundant legal advice and guidance of the most skilled nature available to Mr and Mrs T before the matter came before Wall J. There had also been the possibility, indeed the obligation, to produce further evidence: steps that had not been taken on the instance either of Mr and Mrs T or of those were acting for them. I do not therefore agree that, in assessing the impact of the Convention in this case, one should necessarily start on the day upon which the adjournment was sought, ignoring everything that had gone before. Further, I do not agree that, in proceedings of this nature, in which the children as well as the parents have an intimate and pressing interest, one should look at the question of fairness to the parents in paramount priority to fairness (in terms of a prompt decision, which is another aspect of art) to the children. In the passage that my Lord has read, it is clearly apparent that the judge had, and properly had, the interests of the children well in mind when he was making his decision.
However, I put those matters to one side. I will look at the case on the basis upon which Miss Booth put it in support of the submission that art 6 did require a decision, either to adjourn the trial or to stop it at the point that I have indicated. We have to remind ourselves, as I have already said, that art 6 is concerned with the overall fairness of the proceedings. The article itself lays down very few absolute rules. That said, both the jurisprudence of the European Court and simple common sense, of a kind that an English lawyer can immediately identify, do require in general terms that certain elements are present in any judicial proceedings, an obvious example is the right and ability of those concerned in the proceedings to put their case. Here Mr and Mrs T had ample opportunity and occasion, as the judge was satisfied they had done.
Another consideration is that there should be equality of arms between the parties but, in my view, that does not mean that there must necessarily be legal representation on both sides, indeed on all sides, more particularly where everybody concerned in the case was acutely aware of the need give every assistance to people who were representing themselves. Provided that the tribunal is itself aware o and constantly reminds itself of the duty of fairness, it is very much a matter for that tribunal, and is recognised in the jurisprudence of the Convention as being to a substantial extent a matter for that tribunal, whether, in all the circumstances, it is able to discharge the case fairly.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 FCR 512

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re GB (Children) CA 7-Feb-2013
Appeal against determination in care proceedings. Part way through the mother had sought an adjournment so as to instruct different lawyers, but this had been refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.541525

In re S (A Child) (Family Division: Without Notice Orders): FD 2001

Munby J considered the the duty of full and frank disclosure which exists on those who seek to use a without notice procedure within Children proceedings. Generally, when granting ex parte injunctive relief in the Family Division, the court will require the applicant, and, where appropriate, the applicant’s solicitor, to give a series of undertakings, (a) where proceedings had not yet been issued, to issue and serve proceedings on the respondent, either by some specified time or as soon as practicable; (b) where the application had been made otherwise than on sworn notice, to cause to be sworn, filed and served on the respondents as soon as practicable an affidavit substantially in terms of the draft affidavits produced to the court or, as the case might be, confirming the substance of what was said to the court; (c) to serve on the respondents, as soon as practicable, notice of the proceedings and a sealed copy of the order, copies of the affidavits, any exhibits and notice of return date.
He said: ‘The burden on those who apply for ex parte relief is, as indicated in Memory Corpn plc v Sidhu (No 2) [2000] 1 WLR 1443, a heavy one. And, as the same case shows, the duty of full and frank disclosure is not confined to the material facts: it extends to all relevant matters, whether matters of fact or of law. As Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said in In re M and N (Minors) (Wardship: Publication of Information) [1990] Fam 211, 229, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that those who seek ex parte injunctions are under an obligation to make the fullest and most candid disclosure of all relevant circumstances known to them.’

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2001] 1 FLR 308, [2001] 1 WLR 211, [2001] 1 All ER 362

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – Isaacs v Robertson PC 13-Jun-1984
(St Vincent and The Grenadines) Where the point at issue before the Board was as to a point of procedure with no direct comparable provision in UK law, the Board of the Privy Council should be reluctant to depart from the interpretation set down by . .
Confirmed – Re W (ex-parte orders) FD 2000
The circumstances in which ex parte relief is obtained in the Family Division are likely to vary very widely. Moreover, relief is often granted by the Division in circumstances which are very much removed from those in which ex parte relief will be . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re W (Children) FD 25-Jul-2014
. .
Cited – Re W (A Child) (A Child) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) CA 16-Oct-2013
Sir James Munby discussed the lamentable failure by a local authority to comply with an order of the court: ‘That the parents and their representatives should have been put in this position is quite deplorable. It is, unhappily, symptomatic of a . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v M and Others FD 27-Mar-2015
The authority sought orders to prevent the respondent children travelling to countries controlled by the ISIS groups. The parents being unlikely to be effective to restrain them, the court had made them wards of court.
Held: ‘the status of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.535416

In Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness): FD 2004

Bracewell J said that: ‘Although the medical evidence is of very great importance, it is not the only evidence in the case. Explanations given by carers and the credibility of those involved with the child concerned are of great significance. All the evidence, both medical and non-medical, has to be considered in assessing whether the pieces of the jigsaw form into a clear convincing picture of what happened.’

Judges:

Bracewell J

Citations:

[2004] 2 FLR 200

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re L (A Child: Media Reporting) FD 18-Apr-2011
The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.439643

In Re C (leave to remove from the jurisdiction): CA 2000

The court heard an appeal from an order made on an application for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Morritt, Thorpe and Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

[2000] 2 FLR 457

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Poel v Poel CA 1970
The mother of a child of two and a half had obtained a custody order with weekly access given to the father. She wished to emigrate with her new husband and the expected child of that marriage to New Zealand. She applied to remove the child . .
Cited – MH v GP (Child: Emigration) FD 1995
A single mother wanted to move permanently to New Zealand with her four year old son. The father had regular contact with his son.
Held: The application failed. The Judge stressed the importance of the child’s relationship with the father and . .
Cited – Chamberlain v de la Mare CA 1983
The mother wanted to take the two infant children to New York with her new husband. The father resisted. At first instance, Balcombe J had considered both Poel and Nash, but said that without wishing to be an iconoclast, he would simply apply the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.417806

Regina v B County Council, ex parte P: CA 1991

Application was made for judicial review of a decision of the magistrate in proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act. The issue arose as to whether or not young children should be compelled to give evidence.
Held: The decision of the magistrate not to compel the witness was not reviewable.
Butler-Sloss LJ said that the issue depended upon whether attendance would be oppressive, but added: ‘Research has shown the adverse effects upon some children of the requirement to give evidence in cases of sexual abuse. In cases of young children, such harm may well be inferred: see the Report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence 1989. The introduction of the Order of 1990 [I interpolate that permits the giving of hearsay evidence] clearly envisages an alternative to oral evidence and cross-examination and to make it possible for children making allegations of, inter alia, sexual abuse to do so without the additional stress of a court hearing. The philosophy behind the Children Act 1989 would be thwarted by the ability of the alleged abuser himself being able to require the attendance of the child at court. A court should be very cautious in requiring the attendance of a child in these cases, reinforced as it must be by considerations as to how to deal with a refusal to give evidence after the issue of the summons.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 221

Cited by:

Cited – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC 3-Mar-2010
The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .
Cited – LM (A Child) v Medway Council and others CA 19-Jan-2007
Smith LJ set out the approach when a court considered asking a child to attend at court to give evidence in family proceedings: ‘The correct starting point . . is that it is undesirable that a child should have to give evidence in care proceedings . .
Cited – Re W (Children) CA 9-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.406125

JM (A Minor) v Runeckles: QBD 1984

Mann J considered the conditions for criminal responsibility in a child under 14 and said: ‘I would respectfully adopt the learned judge’s use of the phrase ‘seriously wrong’. I regard an act which a child knew to be morally wrong as being but one type of those acts which a child can appreciate to be seriously wrong. I think it is unnecessary to show that the child appreciated that his or her action was morally wrong. It is sufficient that the child appreciated the action was seriously wrong. A court has to look for something beyond mere naughtiness or childish mischief.’

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

(1984) 79 Cr AppR 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JTB, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual assaults. He was aged twelve at the time of the offences, but had been prevented from arguing that he had not known that what he was doing was wrong. The House was asked whether the effect of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.341784

Chandler v Parker and Danks: 1800

Where the plaintiff declares on a joint contract, and one defendant pleads infancy, the plaintiff cannot enter a noli prosequi and proceed against the other defendant in that action, but should commence a new action against the adult defendant only.

Citations:

[1800] EngR 3, (1800) 3 Esp 76, (1800) 170 ER 544 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Contract, Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.345779

In re H (Children: Residence order: Relocation): CA 30 Jul 2001

A court has the power under the Act to impose a condition on a residence order to prevent a proposed move within the UK. Such an order would be exceptional. In the absence of such a condition, there was nothing to require a parent with residence wanting to move to Northern Ireland, first to seek the consent of the court, since this would not involve removal from the UK. In re X and Y (leave to remove from the jurisdiction: no order principle) ([2001] 2 FCR 398) should not be followed, and Payne v Payne (Times March 9 2001 and [2001] 2 WLR 1826) was approved.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Astill J

Citations:

Times 29-Aug-2001, [2001] 2 FLR 1277

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re E (Minors) (Residence Orders: Imposition of Conditions) CA 30-Apr-1997
A residence order can not be accompanied by an order as to where a parent with care must live in the UK or with whom. An appeal may well arise in which a disappointed applicant will contend that section 13(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re B (A child) (Relocation) CA 24-Jul-2007
The mother appealed against a prohibited steps order preventing her taking the child of the family with her on her relocation to Northern Ireland.
Held: The making of an order either as a prohibited steps order or as a condition of a residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.162927

Regina v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick and similar: HL 19 Mar 1993

No homelessness priority could be established by means of having a child applying for housing, rather than his or her parent. An application by a person suffering mental disability who would also be dependent upon others was also rejected. In each case the true application was by the parent or carer. The Act is concerned with the provision of housing, not social services’ care. A parent or carer would be given priority under the later section by virtue of that care. The authorities’ duties under Part III of the 1985 Act were not owed to dependent children.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘Dependent children are not amongst those classified as in priority need.
Dependent children depend upon their parents or those looking after them to decide where they are to live and the offer of accommodation can only sensibly be made to those in charge of them.
Such a child is in my opinion owed no duty under this Act for it is the intention of the Act that the child’s accommodation will be provided by the parents or those looking after him and it is to those people that the offer of accommodation must be made.
If a family has lost its right to priority treatment through intentional homelessness the parent cannot achieve the same result through the back door by an application in the name of a dependent child.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jul-1993, Independent 19-Mar-1993, [1993] 2 All ER 65, [1993] 2 WLR 609, [1993] AC 509

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 59(1) 59(1)(c)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Cited – Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.87493

R (Mrs) v Central Independent Television Plc: CA 17 Feb 1994

The court did not have power to stop a TV program identifying a ward of court, but which was not about the care of the ward. The first instance court had granted an injunction in relation to a television programme dealing with the arrest and the conviction of a paedophile who was the father of a five year old child. The mother had sought an injunction the terms of which were to ensure that the programme in no way identified the paedophile.
Held: The court allowed the television company’s appeal essentially on the ground that the programme did not so affect the care and upbringing of the child that it was appropriate to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. The court considered that there was no jurisdiction unless the programme could have had that effect. The court should eschew interference with the freedom of the press when exercising its wardship jurisdiction.
Waite LJ said: ‘These authorities establish, in my judgment, that anonymity or confidentiality for a child or its circumstances can only be enforced by injunction in cases where the publicity would, or might in the view of the court threaten the effective working of the court’s own jurisdiction, whether it be in deciding a question about the upbringing of the child, or in exercising, as in Re C [1990] Fam 39, a continuing supervisory role over a child whose future has already been determined. A mere desire to secure for a child the advantages of confidentiality cannot of itself supply such an issue. Confidentiality is an aid to administration of the jurisdiction, and not a right or status which the jurisdiction itself has any power to confer.’
Hoffmann LJ said: ‘In any area of human rights like freedom of speech, I respectfully doubt the wisdom of creating judge made exceptions, particularly when they require a judicial balancing of interests. The danger about such exceptions is that the judges are tempted to use them. The facts of the individual case often seem to demand exceptional treatment because the newspaper’s interest in publication seems trivial and the hurt likely to be inflicted very great. The interests of the individual litigant and the public interest in the freedom of the press are not easily commensurable. It is not surprising that in this case the misery of a five year old girl weighed more heavily with Kirkwood J than the television company’s freedom to publish material which would heighten the dramatic effect of the documentary. That is what one would expect of a sensitive and humane judge exercising the wardship jurisdiction. But no freedom is without cost and in my view the judiciary should not whittle away freedom of speech with ad hoc exceptions. The principle that the press is free from both government and judicial control is more important than the particular case.’
and ‘But this new jurisdiction is concerned only with the privacy of children and their upbringing. It 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’ (M and N). It therefore cannot apply to publication of the fact that the child’s father has been convicted of a serious offence, however distressing it may be for the child to be identified as the daughter of such a man. If such a jurisdiction existed it could be exercised to restrain the identification of any convicted criminal who has young children. It may be that the decision in X County Councilcan be brought within Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR’s language because the child’s mother at whose past the intended publication was directed, was actually caring for the child at the time of the application. But the events in question had happened long before the child was born. The publication was not directly concerned with the child or its upbringing, and for my part I think that the judge, for wholly commendable reasons, was asserting a jurisdiction which did not exist.’

Judges:

Waite LJ, Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Independent 17-Feb-1994, [1994] Fam 192, [1994] 2 FLR 151, [1994] 3 All ER 641

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re M and N (Minors) (Wardship: Publication of Information) CA 1990
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 . .
Cited – X County Council v A and another 1984
The court made orders about the future of the child born to Mary Bell, who had been convicted at the age of 11 of the manslaughter of two little boys. He was asked to protect the new identities under which the child and her mother were living. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Re S (A Child) CA 10-Jul-2003
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 10-Jul-2003
An order was sought to protect from publicity a child whose mother faced trial for the murder of his brother. The child was now in care.
Held: The court must balance the need to protect the child with the need for freedom of the press. The . .
Cited – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Livingstone v The Adjudication Panel for England Admn 19-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged a finding that as Mayor of London offensive remarks he had made to a journalist as he was pursued leaving a private party had brought his office into disrepute.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Though the remarks may have . .
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Cited – In Re G (Minors) (Celebrities: Publicity) CA 4-Nov-1998
Where extra publicity might attach to proceedings because of the celebrity of the parents, it was wrong to attach extra restrictions on reporting without proper cause. There remains a need to balance the need for the freedom of speech and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86320

A v A (Children: Shared Residence Order): CA 3 Feb 1994

A shared residence order may be still made if it is needed, but it remains an unusual order. Connell J discussed the guidance given as to shared residence order
Butler-Sloss LJ said: ‘Miss Moulder, representing the father, accepts that the conventional order still is that there would be residence to one parent with contact to the other parent. It must be demonstrated that there is positive benefit to the child concerned for a s 11 (4) order to be made, and such positive benefit must be demonstrated in the light of the s 1 checklist . . The usual order that would be made in any case where it is necessary to make an order is that there will be residence to one parent and a contact order to the other parent. Consequently, it will be unusual to make a shared residence order. But the decision whether to make such a shared residence order is always in the discretion of the judge on the special facts of the individual case. It is for him alone to make that decision. However, a shared residence order would, in my view, be unlikely to be made if there were concrete issues still arising between the parties which had not been resolved, such as the amount of contact whether it should be staying or visiting contact or another issue such as education, which were muddying the waters and which were creating difficulties between the parties which reflected the way in which the children were moving from one parent to the other in the contact period . . If a child, on the other hand, has a settled home with one parent and substantial staying contact with the other parent, which has been settled, long-standing and working well, or if there are future plans for sharing the time of the children between two parents where all the parties agree and where there is no possibility of confusion in the mind of the child as to where the child will be and the circumstances of the child at any time, this may be, bearing in mind all the other circumstances, a possible basis for a shared residence order, if it can be demonstrated that there is a positive benefit to the child.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1994, [1994] 1 FLR 669

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 11(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re AR (A Child: Relocation) FD 10-Jun-2010
Both parents had parental responsibility. The French mother wished to return to live in France and to take the five year old child with her, applying to court for the appropriate order.
Held: The court pointed to the real difficulties always . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77585

Re F (A Minor) (Child Abduction): CA 1992

The family had moved to Australia from England. Within weeks the father moved out of the house at the mother’s suggestion. The father took the child to England on 10 July. Johnson J had held at first instance that by 21 May the family were habitually resident in Australia. That finding was challenged on appeal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Butler-Sloss LJ said: The judge was entitled to make the finding that the family did intend to emigrate from the UK and settle in Australia. With that settled intention, a month can be, as I believe it to be in this case, an appreciable period of time. Looking realistically at the position of A (the child), by the time he left Sydney on the 10 July 1991, he had been a resident in Australia for the substantial period of nearly 3 months.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

(1992) 1 FLR 548

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – W v F FD 4-Apr-2007
Application by father for summary return of son to the USA. The mother said that the father had consented to his removal and acquiesced in his stay here.
Held: The mother had a settled intention to remain in the US when she first arrived, but . .
Cited – Re B (A Child) SC 3-Feb-2016
Habitual Residence of Child not lost
(Orse In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)) The Court considered the notion of habitual residence. The British girl with same sex parents had been taken to Pakistan, and her mother here sought her return. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.268696

Stray v Stray: 1999

Citations:

[1999] 2 FLR 610

Cited by:

Cited – In re X, (Emergency Protection Orders) FD 16-Mar-2006
Within two hours of a case conference which mentioned possible removal of children, but agreed other steps, the local authority applied for an emergency protection order, and forcibly removed the child from the family.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.241296

Re K: 1991

The natural bond and relationship between parent and child gives rise to universally recognized norms which ought not to be gratuitously interfered with and which, if interfered with at all, ought to be so only if the welfare of the child dictates it.

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 431

Cited by:

Cited – CG v CW and Another (Children) CA 6-Apr-2006
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.240125

C v C (A Minor) (Custody: Appeal): 1991

Citations:

[1991] 1 FLR 223

Cited by:

Cited – CG v CW and Another (Children) CA 6-Apr-2006
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.240127

Logan v United Kingdom: ECHR 6 Sep 1996

The complaint was that the mandatory child support payments meant that the father could not visit his children as often as he was entitled under the court’s order to do. The complaint of a direct breach of article 8 failed because he could not show that the impact upon his family life was sufficiently grave, but in another case it might have been.

Citations:

24875/94

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.239809

Re X (Disclosure of Information): FD 2001

There cannot be an expectation that expert evidence given in a children’s court will always stay confidential. The various aspects of confidentiality will have greater or lesser weight on the facts of each case. Munby J: ‘Wrapped up in this concept of confidentiality there are, as it seems to me, a number of different factors and interests which need to be borne in mind:
(i) First, there is the interest of the particular child concerned in maintaining the confidentiality and privacy of the proceedings in which he has been involved, what . . Balcombe LJ referred to as the ‘curtain of privacy’.
(ii) But there is also, secondly, the interest of litigants generally that those who, to use Lord Shaw of Dunfermline’s famous words in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 482, ‘appeal for the protection of the court in the case of [wards]’ should not thereby suffer ‘the consequence of placing in the light of publicity their truly domestic affairs’. It is very much in the interests of children generally that those who may wish to have recourse to the court in wardship or other proceedings relating to children are not deterred from doing so by the fear that their private affairs will be exposed to the public gaze – private affairs which often involve matters of the most intimate, personal, painful and potentially embarrassing nature. As Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘The affairs are truly private affairs; the transactions are transactions truly intra familiam’.
(iii) Thirdly, there is a public interest in encouraging frankness in children’s cases, what Nicholls LJ referred to in Brown v Matthews [1990] Ch 662, 681C, as the frank and ready co-operation from people as diverse as doctors, school teachers, neighbours, the child in question, the parents themselves, and other close relations, including other children in the same family, on which the proper functioning of the system depends . . it is very much in the interests of children generally that potential witnesses in such proceedings are not deterred from giving evidence by the fear that their private affairs or privately expressed views will be exposed to the public gaze.
(iv) Fourthly, there is a particular public interest in encouraging frankness in children’s cases on the part of perpetrators of child abuse of whatever kind . . .
(v) Finally, there is a public interest in preserving faith with those who have given evidence to the family court in the belief that it would remain confidential. However, as both Ralph Gibson LJ in Brown v Matthews [1990] Ch 662, 672B . . and Balcombe LJ in In re Manda [1993] Fam 183, 195H . . make clear, whilst persons who give evidence in child proceedings can normally assume that their evidence will remain confidential, they are not entitled to assume that it will remain confidential in all circumstances . . .’

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 440

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .

Cited by:

Cited – British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y FD 24-Nov-2005
Application was made by the claimant for orders discharging an order made in 1991 to protect the identity of children and social workers embroiled in allegations of satanic sex abuse. The defendant opposed disclosure of the names of two social . .
Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Cited – Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237482

Re M (Threshold Criteria: Parental Concessions): CA 1999

In care proceedings the court is not constrained to take the shortest route to an uncontested disposal. Though, the court identified as a general principle ‘there should be no unnecessary litigation in the courts’.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ

Citations:

[1999] 2 FLR 728

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County of Devon and Another Admn 27-May-2005
The local authority in whose care the deceased child had been held challenged a decision by the coroner not to limit his inquiry to the last few days of the child’s life. The coroner had decided that he had an obligation to conduct a wider enquiry . .
Cited – In re W (A Child); AW v SW CA 30-Oct-2008
The father sought leave to appeal against an order made on his application for contact. The mother appeared to have encouraged great hostility in the children toward the father. The court had decided that the children were aroaching ages when they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231171

Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm): CA 2001

Hale LJ said that ‘a comparatively small risk of really serious harm can justify action, while even the virtual certainty of slight harm might not’.

Judges:

Hale LJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 FLR 611

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County of Devon and Another Admn 27-May-2005
The local authority in whose care the deceased child had been held challenged a decision by the coroner not to limit his inquiry to the last few days of the child’s life. The coroner had decided that he had an obligation to conduct a wider enquiry . .
Cited – Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) SC 12-Jun-2013
B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231170

Pini and others v Romania: ECHR 2004

Citations:

(2004) 40 EHRR 312

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Charlton Thomson and Others) v Secretary of State for the Department of Skills and Education Admn 4-Jul-2005
The claimants complained of the respondent’s decision to suspend temporarily but without notice all further inter-country adoptions from Cambodia.
Held: There were proper concerns about a major humanitarian crisis for orphaned children and for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.229319

Re H (2004): 2004

After the birth C had been placed with a foster carer with a view to adoption. the authority had had concerns about the mother’s ability to care for the child after her treatment of older children. The mother found a more stable relationship, and now sought an assessment, and was supported by the guardian and psychiatrist. The authority agreed that some assessment was necessary, but not a residential assessment.
Held: The authority’s proposal would further delay the final order against C’s interests. The changes in the mother’s lifestyle, and the support which would be provided, justified the proposed intensive residential assessment. Without a residential assessment, the court would be deprived of evidence it would need to make the order. The mother’s appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1628 (Fam)

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.228171

B v United Kingdom: ECHR 1987

A local authority considering taking action in respect of a child must consider also the views and opinions of the parents.

Citations:

(1987) 10 EHRR 87

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224411

S v Miller: SCS 2001

After an assault S, aged 15, was detained, arrested and charged with assaulting L. The procurator fiscal decided not to prosecute, and the matter was reported to the police and to the reporter and on to a children’s hearing to consider if measures of supervision were necessary and also if he had committed an offence. S to denied an assault, and that question was referred to a sheriff for determination. Such a proceeding had some features of a criminal proceeding. The criminal burden applied and an adverse finding would be a conviction to which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applied. It was accepted by S in the Court of Session that the children’s hearing would determine S’s civil rights and obligations within the meaning of article 6; the question was whether, as S contended, it would determine a criminal charge against him within the meaning of the article. The reporter tried to show that S had committed a criminal assault, but the proceedings were categorised as civil and not criminal.
Held: Ruling against S on this issue. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord President: ‘In itself the character which the proceedings have in our domestic law is not, of course, conclusive of the character which they should have under the Convention. Nevertheless, if one asks why, ultimately, Parliament has provided for civil rather than criminal proceedings, then the answer must be that, even though they may involve establishing that the child has committed an offence, there is no possibility of the child being punished, having a penalty imposed. On the contrary, in a sec 52(2)(i) case, as in any other, the aim of all the measures in chap 3 of the 1995 Act is, as its title proclaims, the ‘Protection and Supervision of Children’. More particularly, sec 52 deals with ‘Children requiring compulsory measures of supervision’ and so the aim of all such proceedings is for the hearing to determine whether the child concerned requires such compulsory supervision in his own interests, the decision always being taken with the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration (sec 16(1)). Similarly, the reporter can refer a case to a hearing under sec 65(1) for determination on the merits only if he is satisfied, not merely that the child has committed an offence, but also that compulsory measures of supervision are necessary. In my view such proceedings which are instituted to promote the child’s welfare and have no penal element at all do not involve ‘the determination . . of any criminal charge against’ the child in terms of art 6.’
and ‘the very titles of such codes of criminal law will often reveal that they are indeed concerned essentially with ‘matiere penale’. For instance, in France there is a ‘code penale’, in Italy a ‘codice penale’, in Spain a ‘codigo penal’ and in Germany a ‘Strafgesetzbuch’. It follows that when, in such cases as Ozturk, the court investgiates whether the text defining the offence belongs to criminal law, it is investigating whether the text belongs to an area of the law where proceedings can result in a penalty being imposed.’
Lord Penrose and Lord Macfadyen concluded that the proceedings did not involve the determination of a criminal charge since they were not of a penal character but were designed to promote the welfare of the child. The criminal proceedings against S came to an end when the procurator fiscal decided not to proceed with the charge.

Judges:

Lord President (Rodger), Lord Penrose, Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

2001 SC 977

Statutes:

Children (Scotland) Act 1995 52(2)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Durham Constabulary and Another HL 17-Mar-2005
The appellant, a boy aged 15, had been warned as to admitted indecent assaults on girls. He complained that it had not been explained to him that the result would be that his name would be placed on the sex offenders register. The Chief Constable . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224205

Hendricks v Netherlands: ECHR 1983

(Commission) In the context of article 8 the rights and freedoms of the child include his interests. ‘The Commission has consistently held that, in assessing the question of whether or not the refusal of the right of access to the non-custodial parent was in confidentially with article 8 of the Convention the interests of the child predominate.’

Citations:

(1983) 5 EHRR 223

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223034

Re C (Abduction: Interim Directions: Accommodation by Local Authority): FD 2004

The court delivered a judgment settling the extent of the court’s power to remove a child subject to an abduction application into Local Authority accommodation as an interim measure.

Judges:

Singer J

Citations:

[2004] 1 FLR 653

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 5

Cited by:

Cited – Cannon v Cannon CA 19-Oct-2004
The mother had brought the child to the UK wrongfully. She had hidden their identity for more than a year. Upon discovering her, the father came to England and began proceedings for the child’s return to the US.
Held: Because the child’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219117

Perrin v Perrin: IHCS 1994

Citations:

[1994] SC 45

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 5

Citing:

Approved – Re N (Minors) (Abduction) FD 2-Jan-1991
The court considered the degree of settlement that had to be proved under the Act: ‘The second question which has arisen is: what is the degree of settlement which has to be demonstrated? There is some force, I find, in the argument that legal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Soucie v Soucie 1995
After noting the approval of In re N in Perrin the court added: ‘Furthermore the question of settlement had to be considered in the context of the spirit of the Convention whereby the fundamental duty of the court is to order a return of the child . .
Cited – Cannon v Cannon CA 19-Oct-2004
The mother had brought the child to the UK wrongfully. She had hidden their identity for more than a year. Upon discovering her, the father came to England and began proceedings for the child’s return to the US.
Held: Because the child’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Scotland

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219157

V v B (A Minor) (Abduction): 1991

The mother of a child sought return of her son to Australia. The child was born in New Zealand, then came to England and the family then went to Australia. The father brought him back to England by subterfuge. He now denied the child had any habitual residence in Australia, and asserted that he would suffer psychological harm if sent to Australia.
Held: ‘Habitual’ and ‘ordinary’ residence’ were to be defined the same. Though the father denied the return to Australia had been intended to be permanent, the mother had established sufficient to show habitual residence before removal. Australian law gave the mother custodial rights at the time of removal. The words ‘grave risk’ did not mean the same as paramount welfare, and was to be established by different courts with different criteria.

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown P

Citations:

[1991] 1 FLR 177

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Cited by:

Cited – Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200336

Re ET (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof): FD 2003

The court heard a care application in which the baby had sustained skull, brain and other injuries alleged to be at the hands of her parents.
Held: The standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and directed himself according to the principles in re H. ‘Although the result is much the same, this [the cogency requirement] does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred.
So it may very well be that, in looking at these more recent dicta, one is (as Miss Ball put it) somewhat ‘dancing on the head of a pin’; and no counsel has gone so far as to submit to me that, in a serious case such as this, it is now the criminal standard which should in terms be directly applied.
I therefore propose, in applying the civil standard and the re H (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 . . cogency test here, to have well in mind the dicta in the latter two cases just cited. So, whenever in this judgment I ‘find’ something occurred, or expressed myself ‘satisfied’ or ‘persuaded’ of some fact or other, it is in the light of the authorities which I have just been discussing and on the basis that, in this very serious case, the difference between the civil and the criminal standards of proof is ‘largely illusory’.’

Judges:

Bodey J

Citations:

[2003] 2 FLR 1205

Citing:

Applied – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary QBD 5-Apr-2000
The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section . .

Cited by:

Doubted – In re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196918

A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct): FD 2001

There is a compelling public interest in authorising the disclosure of documents to the General Medical Council if they ‘are or may be relevant to the General Medical Council carrying out its statutory duties to protect the public against possible medical misconduct’.

Judges:

Cazalet J

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 673

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) CA 2001
The court considered whether papers in a children’s case should be made available to the GMC: ‘There is obviously a high public interest, analogous to the public interest in the due administration of criminal justice, in the proper administration of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) CA 2001
The court considered whether papers in a children’s case should be made available to the GMC: ‘There is obviously a high public interest, analogous to the public interest in the due administration of criminal justice, in the proper administration of . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Appeal from – A Health Authority v Dr X and Others CA 21-Dec-2001
Where, after a children case has been heard, a party wishes to apply for the release of papers, the application should be made before the judge who had heard the case. To do otherwise left the second judge making a difficult assessment with . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
Cited – Durham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.194856

A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct): CA 2001

The court considered whether papers in a children’s case should be made available to the GMC: ‘There is obviously a high public interest, analogous to the public interest in the due administration of criminal justice, in the proper administration of professional disciplinary hearings, particularly in the field of medicine.’ ‘The balance came down in favour of production as it invariably does, save in exceptional cases.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2014, [2002] 1 FLR 1045

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) FD 2001
There is a compelling public interest in authorising the disclosure of documents to the General Medical Council if they ‘are or may be relevant to the General Medical Council carrying out its statutory duties to protect the public against possible . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) FD 2001
There is a compelling public interest in authorising the disclosure of documents to the General Medical Council if they ‘are or may be relevant to the General Medical Council carrying out its statutory duties to protect the public against possible . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Children

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.194857

In re D (Simultaneous applications for care order and freeing order): 1999

The judge considering two applications for a care order and an adoption order had confused the proper order of issues to be considered, and that error contaminated his decision. The two should be dealt with in sequence.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[1999] 2 FLR 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – In re M (a Minor) (Care order: Freeing Application) CA 18-Dec-2003
Where a local authority sought both a care order and an order freeing the child for adoption, the court must be careful to distinguish between the applications. The care application should be dealt with first. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Adoption

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190239

Regina (S) v Haringey London Borough Council: QBD 13 Nov 2003

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus in respect of her four children who had been removed by the police, and were residing with the local authority under interim care orders. She said they were held against their wills.
Held: The proper forum for such a challenges is the care proceedings, and the administrative court should not intervene. Since in any event the children were not held securely, but were living with foster parents, they were not being detained, and habeas corpus was inappropriate.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-2003, Gazette 08-Jan-2004

Citing:

Cited – In re C (Adoption: Religious observance) 2002
. .
Cited – In re M (Care Proceedings: Judicial Review); In the matter of unborn baby M R; X and Y, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire County Council Admn 15-Apr-2003
Munby J said: ‘If a baby is to be removed from its mother, one would normally expect arrangements to be made by the local authority to facilitate contact on a regular basis . . Those arrangements must be driven by the needs of the family, not . .
Cited – In re L (Care proceedings: Human Rights Claims) 2003
The court set out appropriate procedures designed to human rights claims, even properly brought, from de-railing care proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188375

In re L (Care proceedings: Human Rights Claims): 2003

The court set out appropriate procedures designed to human rights claims, even properly brought, from de-railing care proceedings.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2003] 2 FLR 160

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (S) v Haringey London Borough Council QBD 13-Nov-2003
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus in respect of her four children who had been removed by the police, and were residing with the local authority under interim care orders. She said they were held against their wills.
Held: The . .
Endorsed – In re V (a Child) (Care proceedings: Human Rights Claims) CA 4-Feb-2004
In a hearing where the threshold standard was at issue, a party challenged the compliance with Human Rights law of the 1989 Act. The court adjourned the case for transfer to the High Court.
Held: The correct court to hear such suggestions was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188377

Attorney General ex rel Tilley v Wandsworth London Borough Council: 1981

The section was to be given a wide interpretation.

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 854

Statutes:

Child Care Act 1980 2(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187191

S v McC; W v W: HL 1972

The distinction between the court’s ‘custodial’ and ‘protective’ jurisdictions was recognised. The case concerned the ordering of blood tests with a view to determining the paternity of a child involved in divorce proceedings. This was not a matter of upbringing in which the child’s interests (which might well be prejudiced by a finding that he was illegitimate) were paramount. (Lord MacDermott) ‘The duty of the High Court as respects the welfare and affairs of infants falls into two broad categories. There is, first of all, the duty to protect the infant, particularly when engaged or involved in litigation. This duty is of a general nature and derives from the Court of Chancery and to some extent also, I believe, from the common law courts which were merged along with the Court of Chancery in the High Court of Justice by the Judicature Act 1873. It recognises that the infant, as one not sui juris may stand in need of aid. He must not be allowed to suffer because of his incapacity. But the aim is to ensure that he gets his rights rather than to place him above the law and make his rights superior to those of others. The Official Solicitor, however, relied on something more than the protective jurisdiction. He relied upon what is commonly referred to as the ‘custodial jurisdiction’ – the second of the broad categories which I have mentioned already. This is an aspect of the prerogative and paternal jurisdiction of the former Court of Chancery. It is derived mainly from the administrative functions of the Court of Chancery in which that court had to make a choice between conflicting claims as to the custody and upbringing of the infant or the management of his affairs, or to determine the course to be taken in such matters even when not in actual dispute.’ (Lord Hodson) ‘In custody cases the child’s welfare is the governing consideration when all the relevant facts, claims and the wishes of the parents are taken into account. I am not persuaded that the position is the same where a paternity issue has to be tried. True that, as in all cases where infants are concerned, the court will see that the infant is protected. . . . The court in ordering a blood test in the case of an infant has, of course, a discretion and may make or refuse an order for a test in the exercise of its discretion, but the interests of persons other than the child are involved in ordinary litigation. The infant needs protection but that is no justification for making his rights superior to those of others.’
(Reid) ‘But even if one accepts the view that in ordering, directing or permitting a blood test the court should not go further than a reasonable parent would go, surely a reasonable parent would have some regard to the general public interest and would not refuse a blood test unless he thought that would clearly be against the interests of the child.’ (Sir Thomas Bingham MR) ‘I would for my part accept without reservation that the decision of a devoted and responsible parent should be treated with respect. It should certainly not be disregarded or lightly set aside. But the role of the court is to exercise an independent and objective judgment. If that judgment is in accord with that of the devoted and responsible parent, well and good. If it is not, then it is the duty of the court, after giving due weight to the view of the devoted and responsible parent, to give effect to its own judgment. That is what it is there for. Its judgment may of course be wrong. So may that of the parent. But once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked its clear duty is to reach and express the best judgment it can.’

Judges:

Lord Hodson, Lord MacDermott, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1972] AC 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust FD 22-Mar-2002
The applicant had come to suffer from a completely disabling condition, and requested that her life support machine be turned off. She did not want to live on a ventilator, and had made a living will. She was found at first to have capacity to make . .
Cited – Re S (A Child) CA 10-Jul-2003
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 10-Jul-2003
An order was sought to protect from publicity a child whose mother faced trial for the murder of his brother. The child was now in care.
Held: The court must balance the need to protect the child with the need for freedom of the press. The . .
Cited – A and D v B and E FD 13-Jun-2003
In two separate actions, fathers with parental responsibility sought orders requiring the mothers of their children to ensure they received the MMR vaccine. Each mother objected, having suspicions as to the safety of the treatment. Specific issue . .
Cited – Alexander Cameron (Ap) v Ian Macintyre Gibson, As Executor Dative of the Late Dugald Macintyre and Another SCS 2-Dec-2003
An adoption order had been made, but at the time, the adopted child was over the maximum age. Application was made to set it aside.
Held: Adoption orders could not be set aside save for where some fraud could be demonstrated to have been . .
Cited – Alexander Cameron (Ap) v Ian Macintyre Gibson, As Executor Dative of the Late Dugald Macintyre and Another SCS 2-Dec-2003
An adoption order had been made, but at the time, the adopted child was over the maximum age. Application was made to set it aside.
Held: Adoption orders could not be set aside save for where some fraud could be demonstrated to have been . .
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 . .
Cited – E v Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council FD 1-Jun-2005
The applicant sought an order restraining publication by the defendants of material, saying she did not have capacity to consent to the publication. She suffered a multiple personality disorder. She did herself however clearly wish the film to be . .
Cited – F v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Torts – Other, Health Professions

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184558

In re M (Care: Challenging decisions by local authority): 2001

Citations:

(2001) 2 FLR 1300

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – C and Another v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council FD 18-Jul-2002
Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181248

Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland: HL 1909

Lord Atkinson said: ‘The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of the habits, capacities and propensities of those persons.’ and ‘The authorities from Lynch v Nurdin [1841] EngR 52; (1841) 1 QB 29 downwards establish, it would appear to me, first, that every person must be taken to know that young children and boys are of a very inquisitive and frequently mischievous disposition, and are likely to meddle with whatever happens to come within their reach; secondly, that public streets, roads and public places may not unlikely be frequented by children of tender years and boys of this character.’

Judges:

Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1909] AC 229 HL(I), [1908-10] All ER 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lynch v Nurdin 1841
The defendant’s servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was injured.
Held: The judge had correctly left it to the jury . .

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Ireland, Negligence, Children

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180941

Re G (Care proceedings: split trials): CA 2001

In a situation where an application is made for a care order, and the threshold criteria are met, but the court cannot decide which carer is responsible, the preferable interpretation is that in such cases the court is able to proceed at the welfare stage on the footing that each of the possible perpetrators is a possible perpetrator. The fact that a judge cannot always decide which means that when one gets to the welfare hearing, he has to proceed on the basis that each is a possible perpetrator. This accords with the basic principle that in considering the requirements of the child’s welfare the court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case. ‘When the facts found at the preliminary hearing leave open the possibility that a parent or other carer was a perpetrator of proved harm, it would not be right for that conclusion to be excluded from consideration at the disposal hearing as one of the matters to be taken into account. The importance to be attached to that possibility, as to every feature of the case, necessarily depends on the circumstances.’

Judges:

Hale LJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 FLR 872

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited – North Yorkshire County Council v SA and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180421

Re S (Children: Care Plan); In re W and B (Children: Care plan) In re W (Child: Care plan): HL 14 Mar 2002

The Court of Appeal had imposed conditions upon the care plan to be implemented by the local authorities, identifying certain ‘starred’ essential milestones. The local authorities appealed.
Held: This was not a legitimate extension of the powers contained in the 1989 Act. There exist clear problems in local authorities implementing care plans, and those difficulties adversely affected the children, but it was a cardinal principle of the Children Act 1989 that the courts were not empowered to intervene in the way local authorities discharged their parental responsibilities under final care orders. The provisions of the 1998 Act were insufficient to support the decision. The Court of Appeal had also sought to make greater use of interim care orders, particularly where the judge disagreed with the proposed care plan. Nevertheless, the overwhelming balance was a in favour of certainty and the statutory need for speed, and interim care orders were inappropriately used if for this purpose.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2002, Gazette 25-Apr-2002, [2002] 2 AC 291, [2002] UKHL 10

Links:

House of Lords

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 7 8, Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – In Re W and B (Children: Care Plan) In Re W (Child: Care Plan) CA 7-Jun-2001
Courts should take additional powers under the Act for the management and implementation of care plans made in care proceedings. In these cases, an order had been made on the basis of a care plan which subsequently proved impossible to implement, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – Cheshire County Council and others v DS (Father) and others CA 15-Mar-2007
The court granted an appeal in care proceedings, but examined the relationship between the court and local authorities. There had been a late change in the proposed care plan and an application by grandparents to be made party. Some in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.167982

Re B and W (Minors), Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others: CA 27 Jul 1999

The threshold conditions for the making of a care order, relate to the absence of proper care of a child, and the suffering of significant harm whilst in care arrangements then prevailing. There was no requirement on the court that it be able to apportion any direct responsibility for that harm to any individual person.

Citations:

Times 21-Sep-1999

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A HL 16-Mar-2000
A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder’s own child B.
Held: Even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.135825

Teame v Aberash and Others; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Dept ex parte Teame: CA 8 Apr 1994

Home Secretary may order deportation of a child’s guardian despite a pending appeal for residence order in favour of the applicant. Such a deportation would not be a contempt of court.

Citations:

Ind Summary 02-May-1994, Times 08-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89759

S v S (Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police Intervening): CA 9 Sep 1998

A court should order the police to divulge the address of a child in contact cases where they are re-assured that the child is not at risk, but, for example, domestic violence may have occurred. An officer cannot promise confidentiality but his views should be respected.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Sep-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, Times 24-Aug-1998

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 33, Family Law Act 1986 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88953

In Re AS (Secure Accommodation Order: Representation): 1999

Children aged 15 and 12 were present in court when a secure accomodation order was made.

Citations:

[1999] 1 FLR 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re K (A Child) FD 16-May-2011
The court was asked whether K, a 13-year-old girl, should attend the hearing of an application by her local authority to keep her in secure accommodation for three months. She wanted to be at the hearing, but the local authority opposed her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.439809

Re B (Disclosure to other parties): FD 2001

There was a dispute as to whether one of the fathers involved in the proceedings should have access to certain documents, including psychiatric reports, relating to the mother, her husband and the children. Munby J considered the effect of human rights law on the disclosure procedures in children proceedings.
Held: Whilst an entitlement to a fair trial under ECHR Article 6 is absolute, this does not mean that a party has an absolute and unqualified right to see all the documents. With the advent of the 1998 Act, it was no longer true that the only interests capable of denying a litigant access to documents are the interests of children involved in the litigation. Anyone else who is involved, whether as victim, party or witness and who can demonstrate that their ECHR Article 8 rights are sufficiently engaged, can also have that interest. A limited qualification of the right to see the documents may be acceptable if directed towards a clear and proper objective. Non-disclosure must be limited to what the situation imperatively demands and is justified only when the case is compelling or strictly necessary, with the court being rigorous in its examination of the feared harm and any difficulty caused to the litigant counterbalanced by procedures designed to ensure a fair trial.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 1017

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
Cited – Durham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.424968

Earl of Winchelsea v Norcliff and Al: 1680

A guardian to an infant having a considerable sum of money in his hands, that was raised out of the infant’s estate, lays out andpound;2500 in a purchase taken in the name of IS for the benefit of the infant, if, when he came of age, he should agree thereto, and allow the trustees that money upon account. The infant dies under age. The question was whether the heir of the infant should have this estate, or whether it should be looked on as a security for andpound;2500, and go to the executors and administrators of the infant ? As precedents for the heir were cited the cases of Palmer and Allicot,(1) and Dennis and Badd (Eq. Ca. Ab. 261, pl. 1; Ch Ca 156, SC), where a guardian buys in a mortgage on the infant’s estate, and takes an assignment of it in the names of trustees.
The Court inclined to the heir, but referred this to be stated as a case by the Master. And in this case the court held, that where a person entitled to a share of an intestate’s estate dies before distribution, and within the year, there was an interest vested, and that his share should go to his executor or administrator.
In this case also the Court was of opinion, that where there is a brother of the whole blood to the intestate, and a sister of the half blood, the sister should have but half a share.

Citations:

[1680] EngR 88, (1680-1687) 1 Vern 403, (1680) 23 ER 545

Links:

Commonlii

Wills and Probate, Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.402299

Thomas v Gwynne; Thomas v Thomas: 17 Feb 1846

An infant devisee had been ordered to convey real estate sold for payment of the testator’s debts. He made default, and was not amenable to process. The Court, under the 1 W 4 c 60 s 8, directed a person to convey in his place.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 424 (A), (1845-1846) 9 Beav 275

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Thomas v Gwynne; Thomas v Thomas 3-Jul-1845
Process by attachment to compel an infant to convey estates sold in a creditor’s suit. It is a contenpt to interfere and prevent an infant obeying the the order of the court to convey. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Land

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.302319

Thomas v Thomas: 1855

When a father has entered upon the estate of his infant children the presumption is that he entered as their guardian and bailiff, and therefore the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run against the children until they attain twenty-one, and from that time at least a child has twenty years within which he may recover possession. Semble, entry by a stranger might not have this effect.
If the father retain possession after the children attain twenty-one such possession will be considered to be continued in the character in which he entered, so that an account will be directed, not from the filing of the bill, but, if necessary, from the time of entry.
In an adverse suit, in the nature of an ejectment suit, against a person in no fiduciary relation to the plaintiff, this account is only directed from the time of filing the bill.
If a wife concurs with her husband in mortgaging property over which. she has a power, the husband is primarily liable, unless the wife received the money for her separate use; and the Court will direct an inquiry as to this fact.

Citations:

[1855] EngR 42, (1855) 2 K and J 79, (1855) 69 ER 701

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Limitation

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.291964

Regina v Hampshire County Council Ex Parte H and Another: CA 22 Jun 1998

Before a child’s name can be entered on a local authority’s ‘at risk’ register something more must be shown than general risk of living in stressed family and something directed to the particular child must be shown.

Citations:

Times 22-Jun-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte H Admn 17-Nov-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.86808

Re B (Threshold Criteria): CA 9 Jun 1998

Where a supervision order was sought by local authority in respect of allegations made which were awaiting trial, and an order could be made before the criminal findings where enough was admitted by the carer to support the need for a supervision order.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85726

Regina v Winchester Crown Court ex parte P B (A Minor): QBD 8 Jan 1999

A Crown Court judge’s decision to allow naming of a youth appearing before it, was a matter for the judge’s discretion, and was not susceptible to judicial review proceedings. Such orders are analogous to contempt orders, tending to influence the trial.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39(1), Contempt of Court Act 1981 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Media, Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85615

Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence): CA 7 Oct 1998

Domestic Violence which had been taken to court with orders and enforcement proceedings was not a bar to contact if arranged properly. It is a question of the facts of each case, and the judge’s considered decision would not be set aside.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Oct-1998, [1998] 2 FLR 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85791

Regina v Legal Aid Board, Ex Parte W and Others (Minors): CA 19 Sep 2000

When considering the granting of legal aid for a solicitor to be appointed to represent a child’s guardian ad litem in proceedings under section 34, the Board had failed to acknowledge the requirement under the Rules placed upon a guardian to be represented. There was no choice about the appointment. The power to reject an application could only be exercised where it was considered unreasonable to grant legal aid. The failure to consider the obligation was a fundamental flaw in the decision, which was vitiated.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000, Gazette 05-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 34, Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991/1247) 4.11 4.12, Legal Aid Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Legal Aid

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85363

Plymouth City Council v C and Another: CA 21 Mar 2000

Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the period to be disregarded under the Act for any temporary placement. The court reaffirmed the simple test in Northamptonshire ‘should be sufficient to determine all but the most exceptional cases’. It did not give the judge some sort of discretionary exit from the plain application of the mechanism contained in sections 31 and 105′. (Swinton Thomas LJ) ‘It is clear, as my lord has said in his judgment, that what was intended in that passage was to leave the door open for circumstances or facts which might arise, which could properly, in the context of that decision, be regarded as exceptional. As at present, I do not find it possible myself to envisage facts which would be exceptional, although I entirely accept that it could be that such facts could arise and that it would be right for the court to leave that possibility open.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ

Citations:

Times 21-Mar-2000, Gazette 14-Apr-2000, [2000] 1 FLR 875

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(1) 105(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1999
When two local authorities were competing not to be responsible for the costs of a child committed to care, and the child had proper connections with both areas, the issue was to be decided by asking first whether the child had in fact any ‘ordinary . .

Cited by:

Cited – H (Child), Re (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) CA 18-Nov-2003
The court had to decide to which of two local authorities, responsibility for supervising a care order should be assigned. The child had moved to live with his grandparents.
Held: The judge had been correct to find that family circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84780

Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council: CA 21 Jul 1999

When two local authorities were competing not to be responsible for the costs of a child committed to care, and the child had proper connections with both areas, the issue was to be decided by asking first whether the child had in fact any ‘ordinary residence’ as such, which would settle the issue in almost every case. The test was not intended to become a detailed investigation. The subsections in combination provide a simple test to enable the court to make a rapid designation of the authority responsible for the care order. Simplicity was to be achieved by deeming the ordinary residence immediately preceding the commencement of the period of disregard to continue uninterrupted: ‘I would not say that developments affecting the family during the period to be disregarded cannot in any case be considered. But I would say that such cases should be exceptional.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

Gazette 29-Sep-1999, Times 17-Aug-1999, [2001] Fam 364

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 31(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H (Child), Re (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) CA 18-Nov-2003
The court had to decide to which of two local authorities, responsibility for supervising a care order should be assigned. The child had moved to live with his grandparents.
Held: The judge had been correct to find that family circumstances . .
Cited – Plymouth City Council v C and Another CA 21-Mar-2000
Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84355

In Re R (Minor) (Court of Appeal: Order Against Identification): CA 1 Dec 1998

The applicant sought to set aside the standard form of order incorporated into the dismissal on 17th November 1997 of his appeal against the making of a section 91(14) order, preventing the identification of a child involved.
Held: It is now the rule that a child involved in proceedings in the Court of Appeal must not be named, and an order to that effect is implied whether or not stated. Any party wishing to name a child may still apply to the court to be allowed to do so. The court explained the advantages of anonymity: ‘A general direction . . exists because it is appreciated that in the court below the hearing is in chambers (in normal circumstances the public will have no access to those proceedings unless they make special arrangements to hear them; in children proceedings the public do not normally have access; the matter is subject to rule 4.16(7) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991), while in this court the proceedings are in public. It is considered highly desirable that appellate proceedings wherever possible should be in open court, and the judgment which is given should be available to the public and the profession through the normal court reporting procedures. In the great majority of cases, this could have adverse consequences so far as children are concerned. In a case where a child’s parents are in dispute as to how the child should be brought up or cared for, to identify the child might subject that child to stress and anxiety. It is important that the child, who cannot be said to be other than entirely innocent, should not be damaged by the fact that his or her parents are not in a position to agree amicably as to the future care for that child, or because there are some other disputes as to the child’s upbringing. It is therefore accepted by this court that in general the identity of the child should be protected. That is why the order was made in this case.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Butler-Sloss and Evans LJJ

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1998, [1999] 2 FLR 145

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82141

In Re S (A Child) (Ex Parte Orders): CA 2 Nov 2000

The court set out the basic rules to be followed when applying for ex parte orders in children and ancillary relief cases. Recognising the wide variety of situations which might arise, and the need to retain flexibility, it also recognised the need to act quickly particularly to protect children. Those making an application were under a duty to make the fullest and frankest disclosure of all relevant circumstances. This was not limited to material facts, but included for example any relevant law. Any material put before the court should be on the basis that it might later be placed before any other party, and the applicant had a duty to disclose all such material to that party to allow them to prepare for the return hearing. Undertakings must be strictly adhered to. Representatives would be wise to keep notes of the content of the hearing.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Family

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82156

In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure): CA 18 Jul 2000

A guardian ad litem, representing one child, was entitled to see a report, prepared by the child protection committee of the local authority, which related to the death of the child’s sibling. Such a report constituted a report prepared by the authority whilst exercising a statutory function assigned to it. No question of policy could limit the obligation to disclose such a report. The child had an overwhelming interest on the report. Questions about the disclosure of particularly sensitive material were issues of practice not principle. Section 42 should be given its literal meaning.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2000, Gazette 27-Jul-2000, [2000] 3 FCR 721

Statutes:

Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970, Children Act 1989 42(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – In re J (a Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) FD 9-May-2003
A report had been prepared by the local authority into the way in which it had handled the proceedings. The guardian sought to inspect the report and the authority resisted, claiming public interest immunity.
Held: The report had been prepared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82132

In Re J (A Minor) (Adoption: Appointment of Guardian ad Litem): CA 19 Mar 1999

In contested adoption proceedings the choice of guardian ad litem was entirely a matter for the judge. A guardian with good and long standing knowledge of the child would not be set aside for allegations of bias rejected by the judge.

Citations:

Times 19-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81952

In Re G (Minors) (Celebrities: Publicity): CA 4 Nov 1998

Where extra publicity might attach to proceedings because of the celebrity of the parents, it was wrong to attach extra restrictions on reporting without proper cause. There remains a need to balance the need for the freedom of speech and the child’s interests. That balance does not always fall one way.
Thorpe LJ said that the court: ‘has jurisdiction in personam to restrain any act by a parent that if unrestrained would or might adversely affect the welfare of the child the subject of the proceedings.’
He spoke also of the need to give proper weight to freedom of speech: ‘As Hoffmann LJ rightly said in his judgment in R v Central Independent Television there is an inevitable tendency for the Family Division judge at first instance to give too much weight to welfare and too little weight to freedom of speech. That reality is reflected in the number of appeals in this field which succeed. Beyond that, as this case illustrates, all the advocates and the draftsmen before the court are equally child centred. Those who are to be bound by contra mundum orders have no opportunity to make submissions as to where the boundary should be drawn nor to contribute their expertise to the drafting. In my opinion consideration should be given to establishing a procedure to meet this deficit.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ

Citations:

Gazette 04-Nov-1998, Times 28-Oct-1998, [1999] 1 FLR 409

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1960 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – R (Mrs) v Central Independent Television Plc CA 17-Feb-1994
The court did not have power to stop a TV program identifying a ward of court, but which was not about the care of the ward. The first instance court had granted an injunction in relation to a television programme dealing with the arrest and the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81904

In Re M (A Minor) (Contact Order: Committal): CA 13 Jan 1999

Contempt may be used by a circuit judge of his own motion in order to enforce a contact order but should be used in exceptional and urgent cases only, and the judge who initiates contempt proceedings should not also adjudicate on the motion for committal.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contempt of Court, Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82019

In Re F (A Child): CA 13 Oct 1999

Where a child, having attained sixteen, but with severe mental disability, sought to return home where the local authority feared she might be the victim of abuse, the proper approach was to seek wardship, where she might have separate representation. An application for the displacement of the father as the nearest relative was inappropriate, since her choice was not seriously irresponsible.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Oct-1999, Times 19-Oct-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81872

In Re H (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody): CA 16 Nov 1999

Once a court has become involved in the issues surrounding the ‘right of custody’ of a child as set down in the convention, an English court would not attempt to substitute its own jurisdiction. The child was of unmarried parents in Ireland. The father applied to the court there for contact, and the mother left to come to England. The additional application for guardianship made the court seised of the custody issue. The term should be interpreted widely.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – In Re H (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) HL 3-Feb-2000
It was possible for the court itself to have sufficient rights of custody under the Convention to allow a party to apply on the basis that an abduction had interfered with those rights of custody. A father had begun proceedings but did not himself . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In Re H (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) HL 3-Feb-2000
It was possible for the court itself to have sufficient rights of custody under the Convention to allow a party to apply on the basis that an abduction had interfered with those rights of custody. A father had begun proceedings but did not himself . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81912

In Re M (A Minor) (Official Solicitor: Role): CA 8 Jul 1998

A judge had no power to extend or restrict powers and duties of the official solicitor and or local authorities exercising statutory functions. The Official Solicitor did not act as an agent of the court. A judge ordering the appointment of a guardian ad litem should not restrict the ability of the guardian to complete his statutory duties by fettering his discretion with orders before the appointment.

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1998, Gazette 08-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 90

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Direction (Duties and Functions of the Official Solicitor) 1991
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82021

In Re J (A Minor) (Prohibited Steps Order: Circumcision): CA 22 Dec 1999

Where there was a dispute between parents as to the necessity or propriety of circumcising a child, it was appropriate that the court should be involved to make the decision. Such decisions were vital to the child’s upbringing and irreversible. Here the court had properly considered the matters before him. One parent was not able to make such a decision against the wishes of the other. The circumcision of the child should only be carried out where the parents agree or where a court, in settling the dispute between them, decides that the operation is in the best interests of the child. The President said ‘There is, in my view, a small group of important decisions made on behalf of a child which, in the absence of agreement of those with parental responsibility, ought not to be carried out or arranged by one parent carer although she has parental responsibility under section 2(7) of the Children Act 1989. Such a decision ought not to be made without the specific approval of the court. Sterilisation is one example. The change of a child’s surname is another.’

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1999, [2000] 1 FLR 571

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 2(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights); In re F (a Child) (Imminisation: Parental rights) CA 30-Jul-2003
In two actions heard together, single mothers resisted attempts to have their children immunised at the behest of the fathers, who in each case had parental responsibility.
Held: A one-parent carer did not have the freedom to make such a . .
Cited – B (A Child); Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) CA 30-Jul-2003
The father sought a specific issue order for the immunisation of his child in particular with the MMR vaccine. The mother opposed all immunisation.
Held: Whether a child was to be refused immunisation was an issue on which both parents should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81957

In Re M (A Minor) (Consent Order: Committal): CA 31 Dec 1998

Contempt may be used by a circuit judge of his own motion in order to enforce a contact order but should be used in exceptional and urgent cases only and the judge who initiates contempt proceedings should not also adjudicate on the motion for committal.

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contempt of Court, Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82023

In Re K (A Minor) (Removal From Jurisdiction: Practice): CA 2 Sep 1999

Hearings involving the temporary removal of a child to a non-Convention country needed full preparation, and must be heard by a Family Division judge. The magnitude of the risks and the irretrievable consequences required this. Care should be taken to implement the fullest safeguards, and if necessary expert evidence on the practicality of enforcing such safeguards in that country in the case of breach.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999

Statutes:

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81971

In Re K (A Minor) (Residence Order): CA 26 Nov 1998

The father had been denied access to his child in India. The child had been brought back to England through wardship proceedings. He resisted an application by the mother to take the child to India for a temporary stay. The mother appealed an order granting residence to the father.
Held: The judge had found the mother ‘less than candid’. She had shown herself to be untrustworthy and wanted to remove children from the jurisdiction in such a way that the father might be refused contact, it was proper to award the father residence and to order contact for the mother. The judge’s exercise of his discretion should not be disturbed.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Cazalet J

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H (a Minor) 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81973

In Re B (A Minor) (Sexual Abuse: Expert’s Report): CA 29 Mar 2000

In sexual abuse case brought in the family courts it was vital that instructions to an expert to prepare a report should be impartial, and given jointly by the parties. Such instructions should not allow the expert to make any forensic contribution to any opending litigation. There must be no confusion between the roles of expert to treat and expert to report.

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 871

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v S and Another FD 18-Oct-2004
An expert’s report was required for the purposes of care proceedings. The court ordered that the cost be paid as to half by the local authority, where there were three other parties. The authority appealed.
Held: The authority’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81712

In Re C (A Minor) (Child Abduction): CA 14 May 1999

The test of whether a return of an abducted child will risk grave physical or psychological harm is a strict one, not to be affected too much by considerations of sibling children who are not subject to the Convention against Child Abduction.

Citations:

Times 14-May-1999

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81772

In Re B (A Minor)(Adoption Order: Nationality): CA 16 Mar 1998

Any benefit of nationality obtained through an adoption is a side benefit, and is irrelevant to the substantive issues of the propriety of that adoption. An adoption undertaken principally for that purpose was wrong.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Apr-1998, Times 16-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Adoption

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81713

In Re E (Children) (Abduction: Non-Convention Country): CA 7 Jul 1999

Where a child has been abducted from a country which has not signed the Convention on abduction of children, an English court should be very reluctant to apply English cultural traditions in substitution for those of the home country. Exceptions exist only for persecution, or ethnic, sex or other discrimination. ‘The welfare principle as paramount has been the cornerstone of the family justice system in this jurisdiction for many years. We regard it as a touchstone in measuring the quality of other family justice systems. Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 requires no less. But what constitutes the welfare of the child must be subject to the cultural background and expectations of the jurisdiction striving to achieve it. It does not seem to me possible to regard it as an absolute standard.’
The court drew attention to: ‘the importance of according to each State liberty to determine the family justice system and principles that it deems appropriate to protect the child and to serve his best interests. There is an obvious threat to comity if a State whose system derives from Judaeo-Christian foundations condemns a system derived from an Islamic foundation when that system is conceived by its originators and operators to promote and protect the interests of children within that society and according to its traditions and values.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-1999, Gazette 28-Jul-1999, [1999] 2 FLR 642

Statutes:

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Singh v Entry Clearance Officer New Delhi CA 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, an 8 year old boy, became part of his Indian family who lived in England, through an adoption recognised in Indian Law, but not in English Law. Though the adoption was genuine, his family ties had not been broken in India. The family . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81860

In Re B (A Child) (Split Hearings: Jurisdiction): CA 17 Dec 1999

There had been a split hearing with regard to an application for a child to be committed to the care of the local authority. At the hearing to look into the facts, the court preferred the evidence of a lay witness over medical evidence as to the timing of injuries. The local authority appealed against the findings of fact, and it was held that such an appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the facts where they were determinative under the Act, and the judge had here failed to give reasons to support the decision to reject the expert opinion.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1999, Times 18-Jan-2000

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81704

Gloucestershire County Council v P (A Minor) and Others: CA 19 May 1999

A judge may make a residence order of his own motion, in exceptional and clear circumstances, so as to give residence to a person who was debarred themselves, from applying for such an order. There is no explicit statutory restriction preventing a judge from making such an order.
Where there is a reported decision on a particular point of family law or practice by a High Court Judge, that decision is to be treated as binding on a circuit judge exercising a similar jurisdiction

Judges:

Thorpe, Robert Walker, Butler-Sloss LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 19-May-1999, Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 30-Apr-1999, [2000] Fam 1

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 9(3) 10(1) 10(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re D (Children); BD v AID CA 9-Feb-2010
The father sought leave to appeal against an order permitting the mother to remove the parties two sons from Wales to live in Slovakia. The judge had made a shared residence order. Wall LJ discussed the criticisms of Payne -v- Payne, saying: ‘There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80879

British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly: FD 9 Aug 2000

The interview for television of a child ward of court who had gone to live with members of a religious sect was not necessarily a contempt of court. There are three groups of ways in which a ward’s interests can be protected. First where the wardship would lead to no special action, and the ward would take action himself, where the jurisdiction was exercisable, but after a balancing exercise in which the child’s interests were not paramount, and where a major decision was to be made in which case the jurisdiction was exercisable. Provided the media kept within such rules as did apply, they should not need to apply to the court, and nor would they be in contempt. ‘in relation to the media the exercise of the court’s inherent parens patriae or wardship jurisdiction is divided into three parts: the first part, in which the jurisdiction is not exercisable at all and the child is left to whatever remedies against the media the law would give an adult in comparable circumstances; a second part in which the jurisdiction is exercisable, but in circumstances where, because the court is exercising only its ‘protective’ jurisdiction, the child’s interests are not paramount and where a so-called balancing exercise has to be performed; and the third part, in which, because the court is exercising its ‘custodial’ jurisdiction, the child’s interests are paramount. Well known examples of cases falling into the first category, where no injunction can be granted, are In re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1975] Fam 47; R v Central Television plc [1994] Fam 192 and M v British Broadcasting Corpn [1997] 1 FLR 51.’

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-2000, Gazette 12-Oct-2000, [2001] 1 All ER 323, [2001] Fam 59, [2001] 1 FLR 197

Cited by:

Cited – Re S (A Child) CA 10-Jul-2003
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 10-Jul-2003
An order was sought to protect from publicity a child whose mother faced trial for the murder of his brother. The child was now in care.
Held: The court must balance the need to protect the child with the need for freedom of the press. The . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – A Local Authority v W L W T and R; In re W (Children) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) FD 14-Jul-2005
An application was made by a local authority to restrict publication of the name of a defendant in criminal proceedings in order to protect children in their care. The mother was accused of having assaulted the second respondent by knowingly . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y FD 24-Nov-2005
Application was made by the claimant for orders discharging an order made in 1991 to protect the identity of children and social workers embroiled in allegations of satanic sex abuse. The defendant opposed disclosure of the names of two social . .
Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 17-Nov-2006
There had been care proceedings following allegations of physical child abuse. There had been a residential assessment. The professionals accepted the parents’ commitment to their son, but also found that they were unreliable. It was recommended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media, Contempt of Court

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78610

L v F: 31 Jul 1978

The court heard an application with regard to a proposed change of a child’s surname. The child was living en famille with its mother, stepfather and half-sister. It heard evidence from a distinguished psychologist that ‘when they grew older, children were often greatly concerned with their biological origin’
Held: The application to change the child’s surname was refused. Latey J said: ‘Today divorce was commonplace. The fact that the children’s surname was different from that of the mother and their half-sister would not cause embarrassment. The children would have a better sense of security if there was cooperation between the parents and the step-father.’

Judges:

Latey J

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – W v A (Minor: Surname) CA 1981
The mother of the child sought to change the child’s surname from that of the child’s father to that of her new husband.
Held: The application was refused. Dunn LJ referred to the importance of maintaining the child’s links with the paternal . .
Cited – Dawson v Wearmouth HL 4-Feb-1999
The parents were unmarried. The mother had registered the child under her former partner’s surname. The father sought an order that his name be used instead. The mother’s apeal against an order to that effect had succeeded.
Held: The father’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270803

In re T (orse H) (An Infant): ChD 1963

The mother had by deed poll changed the paternal surname of her daughter by her first husband to that of her second husband.
Held: Buckley J said: ‘In the case of a divided family of this sort it is always one of the aims of the court to maintain the child’s contact, respect and affection with and for both of its parents so far as the circumstances will permit. But to deprive the child of her father’s surname, in my judgment, is something which is not in the best interests of the child because, I think, it is injurious to the link between the father and the child to suggest to the child that there is some reason why it is desirable that she should be called by some name other than her father’s name.’

Judges:

Buckley J

Citations:

[1963] Ch 238

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dawson v Wearmouth HL 4-Feb-1999
The parents were unmarried. The mother had registered the child under her former partner’s surname. The father sought an order that his name be used instead. The mother’s apeal against an order to that effect had succeeded.
Held: The father’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270801

In re A (a Child) (Duty to seek reasons): CA 19 Sep 2007

Where counsel intended to file an appeal and in case of doubt, counsel should consider requesting the judge to amplify or clarfy the reasons for making his own decision before filing his appeal.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Longmore LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

Times 16-Oct-2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.263549

Re B (Disclosure to Other Parties): 2001

Witnesses and others involved in children proceedings have article 8 rights.

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 1017

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Doorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .

Cited by:

Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245943

Re H (Freeing Orders: Publicity): CA 2005

Wall LJ said: ‘Cases involving children are currently heard in private in order to protect the anonymity of the children concerned. However, the exclusion of the public from family courts, and the lack of knowledge about what happens in them, easily lead to the accusation of ‘secret justice’
What is manifestly unacceptable is the unauthorised and selective leakage of one party’s case or selective, inaccurate and tendentious reporting in breach of the rules relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings. This, in my experience, invariably leads to unbalanced misreporting of the difficult and sensitive issues with which the courts have to grapple. In my judgment, therefore, the best way to tackle that problem is by greater openness in the decision-making process.’ and
‘In my judgment, this case provides a strong argument for those who, like myself, take the view that the judgments of circuit and Family Division judges hearing care and adoption proceedings should, as a matter of routine, be given in an anonymised form and in open court.’

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

[2006] 1 FLR 815, [2005] EWCA Civ 1325

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Cited – Webster (the Parents) v Norfolk County Council and others CA 11-Feb-2009
Four brothers and sisters had been adopted after the parents had been found to have abused them. The parents now had expert evidence that the injuries may have been the result of scurvy, and sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Cited – Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Haigh FD 22-Aug-2011
The Council sought to have certain aspects of a care application put into the public domain which would normally have remained private. Application was also made (by the father and the child) for an order restricting the right of the mother to make . .
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245945

In re A and Another (Children: Split Hearings): CA 4 Apr 2006

The mother appealed a decision to place her children in interim care and also a final order.
Held: There had been a split hearing. Wherever such a procedure was adopted, it was important to identify which issues were to be dealt with at which stage, and that the parties understood the consequences of the findings of the first hearing as they might affect the second.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Wall LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

Times 07-Sep-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244848

Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority): FD 2001

Local authorities involved in care proceedings will infringe the rights of parents and other individual parties to them under both Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention unless they conduct themselves with integrity, transparency and inclusiveness so as to satisfy the family’s rights, necessarily to be construed in a wide sense, to a fair hearing and to respect for their private and family life.
Held: The mother’s appeal against the care order was dismissed.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 1300

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – NJ v Essex County Council and Another; In re J (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial); Re J (a child) (care proceedings: fair trial) CA 11-May-2006
The family complained that the local authority had, in assessing the need for a care order, failed to follow the guideliens set down in In Re L, leading to an infringement of their human rights.
Held: Neither in the lower court nor here had . .
Cited – Cheshire County Council and others v DS (Father) and others CA 15-Mar-2007
The court granted an appeal in care proceedings, but examined the relationship between the court and local authorities. There had been a late change in the proposed care plan and an application by grandparents to be made party. Some in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242871

Re C (MA) (An Infant): 1966

The court heard psychiatric evidence of the potential depth of the bond between father and child.

Citations:

[1966] 1 WLR 646

Cited by:

Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244490

In re G (Children) (Shared Residence: Same Sex partner): CA 6 Apr 2005

A lesbian couple had children by IVF. After the relationship failed, application was made by the non-resident partner for a shared residence order. She appealed a refusal.
Held: the judge had erred. The report from Cafcass had recommended the order sought, and the judge had not given sufficient reasons to depart from that report. The position of same sex parents was that a shared residence order was the only way of protecting the position of the parent who did not have residence by providing an equivalent to a parental responsibility order. A failure to make an order would marginalise that parent.
Thorpe LJ said: ‘But perhaps more crucial for me was the judge’s finding that between the first and second days of the hearing the mother had been developing plans to marginalise Miss W . . The CAFCASS officer had expressed a clear fear that unless a parental responsibility order was made there was a real danger that Miss W would be marginalised in the children’s future. I am in no doubt at all that, on the judge’s finding, the logical consequence was the conclusion that the children required firm measures to safeguard them from diminution in or loss of a vital side of family life – not only their relationship with Miss W, but also with her son . . The judge’s finding required a clear and strong message to the mother that she could not achieve the elimination of Miss W, or even the reduction of Miss W from the other parent into some undefined family connection.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Tuckey, Arden LJJ

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-2005, [2006] 1 FCR 436, [2005] EWCA Civ 462, [2005] 2 FLR 957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – CG v CW and Another (Children) CA 6-Apr-2006
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to . .
Appeal from – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.226002