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

There was no jurisdiction under section 38(6) to order residential assessment of a family involved in care proceedings. The words ‘other assessment of the child’ had to be construed as ejusdem generis with the words ‘medical or psychiatric examination’. It was importance that the subsection only refers to the examination or assessment ‘of the child’ and makes no reference to the examination or assessment of any other person in relation to the child. For the court to order a residential assessment of the parents and child together at a specified place would involve the court in an unwarranted usurpation by the court of the local authority’s power (as the authority having parental responsibility under the interim care order) to regulate where the child is to reside.

Citations:

[1996] 2 FLR 464, [1996] 3 FCR 137

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6) 38(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedIn re L CA 1996
In exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, the court’s function is investigative and non-adversarial. Ward LJ: the court had no power to order a residential assessment at a specified place. Millett LJ agreed, but said that a judge could impose ‘a . .

Cited by:

Not FollowedIn Re C (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) HL 29-Nov-1996
The parents were suspected of causing the child non-accidental injury. The court wanted a residential assessment of the family, but the local authority refused, saying it would be too expensive, and would expose the child to continuing risk. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.228024