Immediately after a child was born, the social worker began proceedings for it to be taken into care. The judge severely criticised the actions of the social worker before the birth. The local authority now appealed against an order at the conclusion of care proceedings that they should pay each parent damages in the sum of andpound;100 for having infringed their rights under Article 6.
Held: Actions of the social worker before the birth were not to be taken into account when considering the appropriateness of an action for damages for an infringement of its human rights to family life after the birth. The court should be careful to review the proceedings as a whole, but criticisms of the actions of the local authority before the birth could not amount to unfairness in the proceedings as a whole.
Thorpe LJ: ‘It seems to me almost self-evident that the order which [counsel for the local authority] challenges is unprincipled, but we have heard full submissions from him to enable us to deliver a judgment to discourage repetition of such an outcome in other cases. We have also heard from [counsel] for the guardian, who warns us that as a consequence in part of the case of Re L . . long trials of alleged breaches of Arts 6 and 8 rights are beginning to encumber local authority applications for care orders, with consequential delay and expense that ultimately proves wasted.’
Wall LJ: ‘The mischief identified by the case . . lies in the fact that the judge has isolated a sentence in the judgment of a judge of the Family Division dealing with issues of good practice, and has elevated an alleged failure by the local authority to comply with the practice identified in that sentence into a breach of the parents’ Art 6 rights . . . [judges] should be acute to identify and weed out barren arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention which do not relate either to the identification of the threshold criteria under s.31 of the Act or the ultimate welfare disposal of issues in the case.’
Judges:
Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, Holman J
Citations:
Times 01-Dec-2004, [2005] 1 FLR 627, [2004] EWCA Civ 1575
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
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, Human Rights
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.220259
