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, and in the second case, decisions might better have been deferred until some situation (in this case the mother’s health) was clarified, and the outcome determined. Case workers should star essential parts of the plan, and the guardian ad litem should be informed of progress. The Children Act should be read so as to allow interim care orders, and more detailed supervision of essential parts of the care plan. Both readings of the Act would achieve compliance with the Human Rights Act. The court should use the synoptic test for the generality of care cases, asking ‘whether the proposed interference with the right to respect for private life is proportionate to the need which makes it legitimate’.


Hale LJ


Times 07-Jun-2001, [2001] 2 FLR 582


Children Act 1989, Human Rights Act 1998


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEvans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
Appeal fromRe 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.82281