Each father appealed orders under the section restricting conditionally their right to make applications under the Act without permission.
Held: S91 orders must state their term, and the nature of the application to which it related, but must not then add conditions. Orders made without a limit of time should be the exception. The main thrust of the case law and legislation was that it is generally in the child’s interest to maintain contact with both parents unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. Therefore before a s91 order is made the parent to be affected should have opportunity to consider and be heard on it. Where a need for an order became apparent during a hearing a short adjournment would normally be proper.
Judges:
Thorpe, Wall LJJ
Citations:
Times 13-Sep-2006
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re P (Minor) (Residence Order: Child’s Welfare) CA 11-May-1999
In an application to vary a residence order to return a child to natural from foster parents, no preference was to be given to the natural parents. Their religious views were relevant but not paramount, and a child might be raised in a different . .
Cited – In re N (section 91(14) order) FD 1996
. .
Cited – In re A (Application for leave) CA 1998
An application for leave to apply under the Act by a person subject to an order under section 91 should be made inter partes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.245023