Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Children - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 174 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.


 
 A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct); FD 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 673
 
A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) [2001] EWCA Civ 2014; [2002] 1 FLR 1045
2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Health Professions, Children
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."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re M (Care: Challenging decisions by local authority) (2001) 2 FLR 1300
2001


Children

1 Citers


 
Re G (Care proceedings: split trials) [2001] 1 FLR 872
2001
CA
Hale LJ
Children
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.'
Children Act 1989 31(2)
1 Citers


 
S v Miller 2001 SC 977
2001
SCS
Lord President (Rodger), Lord Penrose, Lord Macfadyen
Children, Criminal Practice
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 'matière pénale'. For instance, in France there is a 'code pénale', in Italy a 'codice penale', in Spain a 'código penal' and in Germany a 'Strafgesetzbuch'. It follows that when, in such cases as Öztürk, 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.
Children (Scotland) Act 1995 52(2)
1 Citers


 
Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611
2001
CA
Hale LJ
Children
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".
Children Act 1989 31(2)
1 Citers


 
Re X (Disclosure of Information) [2001] 2 FLR 440
2001
FD
Munby J
Children, Media
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 . . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority) [2001] 2 FLR 1300
2001
FD
Holman J
Children, Local Government, Human Rights
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.
1 Citers


 
Re B (Disclosure to Other Parties) [2001] 2 FLR 1017
2001


Children, Human Rights
Witnesses and others involved in children proceedings have article 8 rights.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom; ECHR 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 261; 35974/97; [2001] ECHR 298; 36337/97; [2001] 2 FCR 221; (2002) 34 EHRR 19; [2001] Fam Law 506; 11 BHRC 667

 
 Re B (Disclosure to other parties); FD 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 1017

 
 In Re B and T (care proceedings: legal representation); CA 2001 - [2001] 1 FCR 512

 
 In re S (A Child) (Family Division: Without Notice Orders); FD 2001 - [2001] 1 FLR 308; [2001] 1 WLR 211; [2001] 1 All ER 362
 
In Re H (A Child) (Adoption Disclosure): In Re G (A Child) (Adoption Disclosure) Times, 08 January 2001
8 Jan 2001
FD

Children, Adoption
There is no necessity that a father without parental rights must be notified of and heard in adoption proceedings. It was a question for each case, and in circumstances where a mother might justifiably refuse to disclose the identity of the natural father, in order to preserve confidentiality, adoption might proceed without the father being identified. Unless the situation was urgent, it would be appropriate for the authority in such circumstances to apply to the court for directions. The right of the father under the Children Act to apply for parental responsibility did not make him a parent under the Adoption Act. The court did however have the discretion to involve the father. He should be informed unless, for good reasons, it was inappropriate.
Children Act 1989 - Adoption Act 1976

 
Mozes v Mozes [2001] USCA9 16; 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)
9 Jan 2001

KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ILLSTON, District Judge
Children, International
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ]
 
M (Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 458
11 Jan 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 Re A (Non-Accidental Injury: Medical Evidence); Re C-F (a child) (retinal haemorrhages: non-accidental injury); FD 12-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWHC Fam 5; [2001] 2 FLR 657; [2001] 3 FCR 262; [2001] Fam Law 735
 
In Re O (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 16
15 Jan 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re C (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 59
17 Jan 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
D (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 71
17 Jan 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
T (a Child), In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 6
19 Jan 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re W and Another (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 58
25 Jan 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re T (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 110
25 Jan 2001
CA
Butler-Sloss D
Children
Application for leave to appeal against order for contact.
[ Bailii ]
 
In re P (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 147
31 Jan 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
E (a Child) and M (a Child), In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 10
2 Feb 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re P (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 154
5 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
L (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 151
5 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re A (Family Proceedings: Expert Witnesses) [2001] EWHC Fam 7; (2001) 151 NLJ 224; [2001] 1 FLR 723; (2001) 98(16) LSG 32
6 Feb 2001
FD
Wall J
Children

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Re E (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 142
7 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re B and Another (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 135
7 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
A (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 162
9 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Williams v Williams [2001] EWCA Civ 197
12 Feb 2001
CA
Dame Butler-Sloss P FD, Hale, Arden LJJ
Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re S (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 299
12 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re P (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 297
12 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
F-K (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 501
13 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
D (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 230
13 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
B (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 467
13 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Payne v Payne; P v P Gazette, 08 March 2001; [2001] Fam 473; [2001] EWCA Civ 166; (2001) 165 JP 195; [2001] HRLR 28; (2001) 165 JPN 466; [2001] 1 FCR 425; [2001] UKHRR 484; [2001] 2 WLR 1826; [2001] 1 FLR 1052; [2001] 1 Cr App R 36; [2001] Crim LR 842
13 Feb 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ P, Walker LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ
Children, Human Rights
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. Held. The move was a serious interference with family life. The motivation of the parent, the reasonableness of the proposal, and the effects on the child were all important and relevant, but the judge had given proper consideration to these factors, and the paramountcy of the child's interests. Neither domestic case law nor human rights law created any presumption in favour of the applicant. Existing case law was to be reconsidered in the light of the 1998 Act.
Thorpe LJ said: "the advent of the Convention within our domestic law does not necessitate a revision of the fundamental approach to relocation applications formulated by this court and consistently applied over so many years. The reason that I hold this opinion is that reduced to its fundamentals the court's approach is and always has been to apply child welfare as the paramount consideration. The court's focus upon supporting the reasonable proposal of the primary carer is seen as no more than an important factor in the assessment of welfare. In a united family the right to family life is a shared right. But once a family unit disintegrates the separating members' separate rights can only be to a fragmented family life. Certainly the absent parent has the right to participation to the extent and in what manner the complex circumstances of the individual case dictate."
"In summary a review of the decisions of this court over the course of the last thirty years demonstrates that relocation cases have been consistently decided upon the application of the following two propositions:
(a) the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration; and
(b) refusing the primary carer's reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life is likely to impact detrimentally on the welfare of her dependent children. Therefore her application to relocate will be granted unless the court concludes that it is incompatible with the welfare of the children . .
Thus in most relocation cases the most crucial assessment and finding for the judge is likely to be the effect of the refusal of the application on the mother's future psychological and emotional stability."
He continued: "However there is a danger that if the regard which the court pays to the reasonable proposals of the primary carer were elevated into a legal presumption then there would be an obvious risk of the breach of the respondent's rights not only under Article 8 but also his rights under Article 6 to a fair trial. To guard against the risk of too perfunctory an investigation resulting from too ready an assumption that the mother's proposals are necessarily compatible with the child's welfare I would suggest the following discipline as a prelude to conclusion:
(a) Pose the question: is the mother's application genuine in the sense that it is not motivated by some selfish desire to exclude the father from the child's life. Then ask is the mother's application realistic, by which I mean founded on practical proposals both well researched and investigated? If the application fails either of these tests refusal will inevitably follow.
(b) If however the application passes these tests then there must be a careful appraisal of the father's opposition: is it motivated by genuine concern for the future of the child's welfare or is it driven by some ulterior motive? What would be the extent of the detriment to him and his future relationship with the child were the application granted? To what extent would that be offset by extension of the child's relationships with the maternal family and homeland?
(c) What would be the impact on the mother, either as the single parent or as a new wife, of a refusal of her realistic proposal?
(d) The outcome of the second and third appraisals must then be brought into an overriding review of the child's welfare as the paramount consideration, directed by the statutory checklist insofar as appropriate.
In suggesting such a discipline I would not wish to be thought to have diminished the importance that this court has consistently attached to the emotional and psychological well-being of the primary carer. In any evaluation of the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration great weight must be given to this factor."
Children Act 1989 13(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
TV (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 296
14 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Al Habtoor v Fotheringham Times, 02 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 186; [2001] 1 FCR 385; [2001] 1 FLR 951
15 Feb 2001
CA
Thorpe, Laws LJJ, Penry-Davey J
Children, International
There is no jurisdiction in wardship over a child not habitually resident in England. A child born in England of and English mother and Dubai father had gone to live with his mother in Dubai at the invitation of the father, but had there retained the boy against the mother's will. The mother obtained certain orders in Dubai, but then returned to England. The court should give greater recognition to the judgments of foreign courts and refrain from grandiose assertions of jurisdictions. It was important to build bridges between Judeo Christian and Sharia legal traditions.
Thorpe LJ advised that the court should be "extremely circumspect" and "must refrain from exhorbitant jurisdictional claims founded on nationality" over a child who was neither habitually resident nor present here, because such claims were outdated, eccentric and liable to put at risk the development of understanding and co-operation between nations.
Family Law Act 1986 2 - Children Act 1989
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
G (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 463
19 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re O (A Child) (Supervision Order) Times, 20 February 2001
20 Feb 2001
CA

Children
In the light of the new Human Rights law, a supervision order would be preferable to a care order where a local authority sought to protect a child in the light of allegations of abuse or lack of care. Case law predating the new Act would not now be good guidance. The making of a care order would be severe in three respects: it would give power to allow the authority to remove a child, power to take parental control and responsibility, and to take such responsibilities over a longer period of time. Any such arrangements must be proportionate to the threat, and a supervision order should normally be sufficient.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Children Act 1989

 
B (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 347
20 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
M (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 480
21 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
M (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 482
21 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re A (Children) (Contact: Expert Evidence); FD 27-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001
 
Regina v B (Child: Mode of trial for indecency) Times, 27 February 2001
27 Feb 2001
CACD

Children, Criminal Practice
A boy aged fourteen should not have been tried in the Crown Court for allegations of indecency when the complainants were also child witnesses. Such a procedure was not in the interests either of the defendant nor of the complainants. In this case also it could not have been thought that the sentencing powers of the Youth Court would be inadequate.

 
T (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 283
28 Feb 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re A (A Child) (Contact: Separate Representation); CA 28-Feb-2001 - Times, 28 February 2001
 
H-D (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 402
5 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
M (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 576
5 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 White v White; SCS 6-Mar-2001 - [2001] ScotCS 48; 2001 SC 689; 2001 Fam LR 21; 2001 SCLR 607; 2001 SLT 485
 
M (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 464
7 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
T (a Child) and R (a Child), In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 23
9 Mar 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
T (a Child), In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 24
9 Mar 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
C (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 479
12 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
T (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 438
13 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
E (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 478
13 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
N (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 477
14 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
G (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 420
19 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
A (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 500
29 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
D (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 503
29 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
E (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 567
29 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of AB and SB) v Nottingham City Council (2001) 4 CCLR 295; [2001] EWHC Admin 235
30 Mar 2001
Admn
Richards J
Children
A local authoity's failure to fulfil its obligations may be the subject of a mandatory order in approriate cases. The Court ordered a local authority to carry out a full assessment of a child's needs in accordance with the guidance given by the Secretary of State in 'Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families'
Children Act 1989 17
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
U (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 565
30 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
A (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 561
30 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
E (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 451
30 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
J (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 564
30 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
M (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 562
30 Mar 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re M (A Child: Secure Accommodation Order); CA 5-Apr-2001 - Times, 05 April 2001
 
K (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 553
5 Apr 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
J (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 490
6 Apr 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
B (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 578
11 Apr 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
B (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 577
11 Apr 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re X (Non-Accidental Injury: Expert Evidence) [2001] EWHC Fam 6
11 Apr 2001
FD

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (G) v Barnet London Borough Council Times, 05 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 540; (2001) 4 CCLR 128
11 Apr 2001
CA
Ward LJ
Housing, Children
A mother and child from Holland were homeless in London. The mother was not entitled to be rehoused as a homeless person, nor to housing benefit, nor to income support, but sought the right to be housed with her child. The authority felt the best plan was to return the child to Holland. The duty under the Act to care for the child contained only a permissive power to care for the family. The obligation under s20 was to provide accommodation only. The decision to provide assistance to return the child could not be returned by a refusal of the mother into a duty to provide accommodation for both.
Children Act 1989 17 20 23
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re X (Non-Accidental Injury: Expert Evidence) [2001] EWHC Fam 1; [2001] 2 FLR 90
11 Apr 2001
FD
Singer J
Evidence, Children
A child had been injured, and the local authority sought a care order. A expert witness for the parents had argued that the child may have suffered a condition of Temporary Brittle Bone Disease (TBBD). Held: Though the parents had been convicted before a criminal court, in fact there had been no finding of fact relevant to the current application. The expert evidence was quite unsatisfactory. TBBD is not recognised as a condition, and the expert's evidence was so tendentious as to call into question the validity of his claim to be an expert witness. The burden of proof of abuse lay upon the local authority but on the balance of probability. Though the injury could be safely ascribed to neither parent the threshold criteria had been reached and directions were given for further hearings.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Re G (unreported) 11 April 2001
11 Apr 2001
CA
Ward L.J
Children

1 Citers


 
In the Petition D for an Order Under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 [2001] ScotCS 92
20 Apr 2001
SCS

Scotland, Children

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
[ Bailii ]
 
In the Petition D for an Order Under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
20 Apr 2001
SCS
T.G. Coutts, Q.C.
Scotland, Children

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
[ ScotC ]
 
B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom Times, 15 May 2001; 36337/97; 35974/97; (2002) 34 EHRR 529; [2001] 2 FLR 261; [2001] ECHR 295; [1999] ECHR 179; [2001] Fam Law 506; [2001] 2 FCR 221; 11 BHRC 667
24 Apr 2001
ECHR
J-P Costa P, Loucaides, Kuris, Tulkens, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Greve and Mr K Traja JJ, and Dolle, Section Registrar
Children, Human Rights, Administrative
The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were affected, the rules allowed application for their admission to the proceedings, and leave could also be sought to disclose the results of the proceedings to named parties. Custody and contact disputes were prime examples of situations where exclusion of the press and public could be justified to protect the interests of the child and parties to the case: "such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment … to pronounce the judgment in public would, to a large extent, frustrate these aims." Parties were expected to be candid and open about events, and that would be threatened if proceedings were held in public.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
B (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 625
25 Apr 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 MQ v BQ; FdNI 1-May-2001 - [2001] NIFam 11
 
H v H [2001] EWCA Civ 653
2 May 2001
CA

Children, Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dombrowicz v Gray Or Dumbrowicz for an Order Under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985; SCS 2-May-2001 - [2001] ScotCS 103
 
D (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 742
3 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re C (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 810
8 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re R (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 857
8 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re C (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 718
8 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 TP And KM v The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-May-2001 - 28945/95; (2001) 34 EHRR 42; [2001] ECHR 332; [2001] 2 FLR 549; (2001) 3 LGLR 52; [2001] 2 FCR 289; (2001) 4 CCL Rep 398; [2001] Fam Law 590
 
Re T (A Child) [2001] EWHC Fam 10
10 May 2001
FD
Bodey J
Children
Application for an order that blood tests including DNA tests be used to ascertain whether such tests show that he is, or is not, excluded from being the father of T. It is an application made as a preliminary to his actual, or intended, application for parental responsibility and contact. He strongly believes, and claims, that he is the father.
[ Bailii ]
 
Z And Others v The United Kingdom Times, 31 May 2001; [2001] 2 FCR 246; 29392/95; [2001] 34 EHRR 97; [2001] 2 FLR 612; [2001] ECHR 329; [2001] ECHR 333; 10 BHRC 384; (2002) 34 EHRR 3
10 May 2001
ECHR

Children, Human Rights
Four children complained that, for years before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services department was well aware that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering "appalling" neglect in the home of their parents. Suspicions of abuse had arisen in 1987, but they were given effective support only in 1992. Held: The claim succeeded. The state had been in breach of its duty under Article 3 to protect them against inhuman or degrading treatment. The court upheld the commission's conclusion that the social services department had been aware that the children had been suffering such neglect as amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent its continuance: "The Court acknowledges the difficult and sensitive decisions facing social services and the important countervailing principle of respecting and preserving family life. The present case however leaves no doubt as to the failure of the system to protect these child applicants from serious, long-term neglect and abuse."

Effective measures were particularly needed in the case of children and other vulnerable people. Because there was a serious doubt about the availability of a remedy through the courts, there was equally a failure to provide a remedy and accordingly a breach of Article 13. There was no breach or articles 6 or 8. Article 6(1) does not itself guarantee any particular content for civil rights and obligations in the substantive law of the Contracting States. "Article 6(1) extends only to contestations (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the contracting states. It will however apply to disputes of a "genuine and serious nature" concerning the actual existence of the right as well as to the scope and manner in which it is exercised."
"The applicants alleged that the local authority had failed to protect them from inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention which provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The Commission in its report found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It considered that there was a positive obligation on the Government to protect children from treatment contrary to this provision. The authorities had been aware of the serious ill-treatment and neglect suffered by the four children over a period of years at the hands of their parents and failed, despite the means reasonably available to them, to take any effective steps to bring it to an end.
The applicants requested the Court to confirm this finding of a violation.
The Government did not contest the Commission's finding that the treatment suffered by the four applicants reached the level of severity prohibited by Article 3 and that the State failed in its positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to provide the applicants with adequate protection against inhuman and degrading treatment.
The Court re-iterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The obligation on High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see A v the United Kingdom judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, para 22). These measures should provide effective protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge."
European Convention on Human Rights 3 6 13
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
M (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 798
11 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re S (A Child) (Residence Order: Condition) [2001] EWCA Civ 847; [2001] 3 FCR 154
11 May 2001
CA
Thorpe, Clarke LJJ
Children
Thorpe and Clarke LJJ both observed that it was desirable to have some consistency between the principles to be applied as between applications for leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction and for removals within the jurisdiction of the court.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
R (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 848
11 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
H-P (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 751
15 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re S (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 863
15 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
A (Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 864
15 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Carmarthenshire County Council v Evans and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 892
16 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v H (reasonable Chastisement) Times, 17 May 2001
17 May 2001
CACD

Crime, Human Rights, Children
The defence of reasonable chastisement of a child by his parent remained available despite the Human Rights Act. When directing the jury the judge must give a detailed direction requesting them to consider the nature duration and context of the act, the physical and mental consequences to the child, the age and personal characteristics of the child, and the reasons given for administering the punishment. Standards of reasonableness had changed over time, and there is no impropriety in a judge allowing for this in his directions to the jury.

 
S (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 868
18 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs; 18-May-2001 - [2001] FCA 568
 
Z (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 867
18 May 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
J (a Child) and S (a Child), In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 44
23 May 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
W and B (Children) and W (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 757; [2001] 1 FLR 582
23 May 2001
CA

Children, Human Rights
If the state is to interfere in the child's right to respect for his family life, it has a duty to use its best endeavours to make good what it has taken away.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A v The London Borough of Lambeth [2001] EWHC Admin 376
25 May 2001
Admn

Children, Local Government, Housing
The applicant was mother of three children, two of whom were autistic. She sought re-housing from the defendant. It was claimed that s17 imposed a specific duty on the authority, having identified a child's needs, in this case for re-housing, to satisfy them. Held: The structure the section is general, and point very clearly to a discretion, rather than a duty, to provide accommodation in any individual case. The Act also provides a distinction between a duty to provide services and any duty to provide housing. The duties are target ones. The 1970 Act does not include a power to provide accommodation.
Children Act 1989 17 - Carer's Recognition and Services Act 1995 - Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Banomova v Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 25-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 807
 
Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council Times, 03 July 2001; CO/3698/2000; (2001) LGR 513
25 May 2001
QBD
Baker
Children, Local Government, Judicial Review
The duty imposed by section 17 of the Act on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children is a general duty only, and is not capable of being enforced for the benefit of a particular child by way of judicial review. As a so called target duty decisions made by the local authority pursuant to it were not open to challenge by review. Other sections may give rise to specific duties which might be so challenged, but not the general obligation.
courtcommentary.com Duty placed on social services authority under Children Act 1989 s17 is a target duty owed to children in general and not justiciable by judicial review - no duty in law to meet assessed needs by providing alternative accommodation for the whole family
Children Act 1989 17 20
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ courtcommentary.com ]

 
 T P and K M v United Kingdom; ECHR 31-May-2001 - Times, 31 May 2001
 
South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust v W [2001] NIFam 29
5 Jun 2001
FDNI

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
W (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 877
6 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re W and B (Children: Care Plan) In Re W (Child: Care Plan); CA 7-Jun-2001 - Times, 07 June 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 582
 
E (Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 880
12 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
D (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 904
12 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
G (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 903
14 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
ED v SGD for an Order Under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 [2001] ScotCS 155
19 Jun 2001
SCS

Scotland, Children

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
[ Bailii ]
 
W (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 994
20 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re M (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1034
21 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re T (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1045
21 Jun 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re H (Children) (Contact Order) ( No 2) Times, 10 August 2001
22 Jun 2001
FD
Wall J
Children
Exceptional circumstances might exist such that the need to protect a child's primary carer would require the court to safeguard that at the expense of the immediate consideration of the welfare of the children. Here, contact had been established after the separation, but the father suffered a degenerative disease, and threatened his own suicide, and to take the children with him. His attempt to carry out the threat was averted by a third party. The mother provided evidence that she was so concerned at the possibility that she would be likely herself to suffer a nervous breakdown if contact were ordered. In this case the balance was against contact being ordered.
Children Act 1989

 
G (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 968; [2001] 1 WLR 2100; [2001] 2 FCR 757; [2001] 2 FLR 1111; [2001] Fam Law 727
22 Jun 2001
CA
Aldous, Hale, Jonathan Parker LJJ
Children
The court was asked, in proceedings for care and supervision orders under the Act, what have the local authority to be in a position to prove at the time when they make the application? To what extent can they rely upon evidence, which emerges, or events, which take place between the date of the application and the final hearing?
Children Act 1989
[ Bailii ]
 
A, In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 48
25 Jun 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (S) v Swindon Borough Council and Another Times, 27 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 334
27 Jun 2001
QBD

Children, Local Government
When considering the need for measures to protect a child, the local authority did not first require evidence to a standard which would satisfy a court even on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. At the later stage where decisions might be taken by a court was the time when standards of evidence came to be applied. When deciding to begin an investigation, the words of the statute were enough. They had only to have reasonable cause to suspect that a child might suffer harm.
Children Act 1989 47
[ Bailii ]
 
North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust v DH [2001] NIFam 17
27 Jun 2001
FdNI

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re T (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1067
28 Jun 2001
CA
Butler-Sloss P, Thorpe LJ
Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re B (A Minor) (Interim Care Orders: Renewal) Times, 28 June 2001
28 Jun 2001
FD

Children
The child was made subject to an interim care order. On the application to renew the interim order, the judge decided to limit the matters to be considered to matters which had changes since the last hearing. This was not something to be derived from the Act, but from the ability of the court to control its own procedures. Such hearings might limit the matters considered to significant changes since the last hearing, and any impact those changes might have on the grounds listed in the Act.
Children Act 1989 38(2)

 
In re C (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1102
3 Jul 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
C (Children), Re (Residential Assessment) [2001] EWCA Civ 1305; [2001] 3 FCR 164
4 Jul 2001
CA

Children

Children Act 1989 38(6)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions) Times, 05 July 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001
5 Jul 2001
CA

Children
It should be routine that, when presenting a case before a court to apply for a care order, the applicant authority should provide a written statement of the reasons, upon which it argued that the threshold conditions had been met. That statement should be based upon the evidence available at the time the decision to apply was made, and the authority must show that the threshold had been crossed when the application was made. After-acquired evidence might be included, but the authority should not set out only in the hope that evidence would turn up. Even so, the court must allow for the continually changing situation against which such applications are made, and admit evidence accordingly.
Children Act 1989 31(2)

 
re W (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1079
5 Jul 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re M (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1341
9 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Children
Application for leave to appeal against refusal of order varying residence arrangements.
[ Bailii ]
 
In re P (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1145
10 Jul 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re H (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1294
16 Jul 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re T (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1184
17 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Children
Mother's application for leave to appeal against contact order.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Regina (Q and Another) v Same; CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1151; [2001] 2 FLR 1122; [2001] UKHRR 1035; [2001] 1 WLR 2002; [2001] 3 FCR 416; [2001] Prison LR 297; [2001] Fam Law 803
 
In re H (Children: Residence order: Relocation) Times, 29 August 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 1277
30 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ, Astill J
Children
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re H (Children) ) (Residence Order: Condition) [2001] EWCA Civ 1338; [2001] 2 FLR 1277; [2001] Fam Law 870; [2001] 2 FLR 77; [2001] 3 FCR 182
30 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe, Astill JLJ
Children
Thorpe LJ said: "What is the rationalisation for a different test to be applied to an application to relocate to Belfast, as opposed to, say, an application to relocate from Gloucester to Dublin? All that the court can do is to remember that in each and every case the decision must rest on the paramount principle of child welfare."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Re W (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1335
31 Jul 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re M (Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1313
1 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re T (Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1315
2 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re C (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1339
3 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
MH, SB, MB v Local Authority (Supplemental Judgement) Times, 15 November 2001; FPC 178/00162/163 and FPC 96 OO/8899
3 Aug 2001
FD
Mr Justice Wall
Family, Children
The effect of section 12(5)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 was to continue the appointment of a child's guardian ad litem after the making of a supervision order until the order expired or the guardian's appointment was terminated by the court. His functions should be carefully defined to provide a specific and identified role and there should be no duplication or confusion between the role of the local authority and that of the guardian.
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 12(5)(b) - Children Act 1989

 
In re S (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1359
7 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re A (Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1357
16 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re C (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1426
21 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re K (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1427
21 Aug 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
S (a Child), In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 61
30 Aug 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on Application of A v Head Teacher of Penlan School And; Governors of Penlan School and and City and County of Swansea [2001] EWHC Admin 721; [2002] ELR 244
31 Aug 2001
Admn
Mr Justice Hooper
Education, Children, Health and Safety
A school wrote a letter to a child's parents saying that he would be permanently excluded after verbal violence against a teacher. This was said to have followed earlier serious and repeated problems of indiscipline. His appeal was successful, and he was returned to the class The teachers proposed a strike. The head teacher wrote to say that he could not guarantee the child's health and safety at school. The Act only allows exclusion on disciplinary grounds. The reference to health and safety, and the implicit threat amounted to an unlawful exclusion.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 64(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In re G and P (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1431
13 Sep 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re H (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1432
13 Sep 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]

 
 Re G (Children); CA 14-Sep-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1433
 
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v Grant Gazette, 25 October 2001
17 Sep 2001
FD
Wall J
Licensing, Children, Magistrates
The council cancelled the respondent's registration as a child minder. The respondent appealed to the Magistrates, and succeeded, the court finding that the process undertaken by the council had infringed his rights. On appeal the council succeeded. The magistrates should have looked beyond procedural issues. The appeal to them required a hearing de novo. The matter was remitted to be heard before a different bench. Though the case should have been heard by magistrates who were members of the family panel, that was not sufficient itself to vitiate the decision.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 - Children Act 1989 77(6) - Human Rights Act 1998

 
Regina (L and Others) v Manchester City Council, Regina (R and Another) v Same Times, 10 December 2001; [2002] Fam Law 13; [2001] EWHC 707 (Admin); [2002] 1 FLR 43; [2002] ACD 45; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 268
28 Sep 2001
QBD
Mr Justice Munby
Family, Children, Local Government, Human Rights, Local Government
The council had a policy under which the financial assistance it gave to short term foster carers who were relatives of the children involved was rather less than would be given to non-family carers. The policy was challenged as unreasonable. Held: The policy which imposed arbitrary financial limits was unreasonable, and would inevitably conflict with the duty to look to the child's welfare. The policy operated to discriminate against family members and therefore infringed their human rights under the convention
Children Act 1989 22(3)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
[ Bailii ]
 
Re L (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1480
28 Sep 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Children
Renewed application for permission to appeal against order transferring residence of the only child for the family from mother to father.
[ Bailii ]
 
C (Children), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 1508
10 Oct 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (SR) v Nottingham Magistrates' Court [2001] EWHC Admin 802
19 Oct 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Newman
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Children, Discrimination
The applicant SR, aged 15, was remanded in custody to a Youth Offenders Institution pending sentence. Had he been a girl, he could not have been so remanded, since no similar provision was available for them. He complained that the law infringed his human rights. It was accepted that he was properly dealt with under the rules. For Art 14, a difference is discriminatory if it 'has no objective and reasonable justification', that is, it pursues no 'legitimate aim' or if there is no 'reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means and the aim to be realised'. The court refused the declaration of incompatibility requested, but ordered that the committal to custody had been wrong.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 98 - European Convention on Human Rights art 14
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bond v Leicester City Council Times, 23 November 2001; Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1544; [2002] 1 FCR 566; [2002] HLR 6
23 Oct 2001
CA
Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice David Steel
Children, Housing, Family
The applicant had been the victim of domestic violence. She applied to be rehoused, but the authority considered her to be intentionally homeless, since she could have applied to court for an injunction excluding the violent partner. Held: That approach was incorrect. Although remedies might be available, these could be uncertain, and difficult for some people to achieve, and particularly so where there were children, and the courts would otherwise encourage attempts by the parties to avoid bitterness so as to encourage contact. There is still no presumption that contact with a violent parent was wrong.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust v EH [2001] NIFam 30
23 Oct 2001
FDNI

Northern Ireland, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
B (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 1642
24 Oct 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council Times, 20 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1624
5 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Philip Otton
Housing, Children
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a 'target' duty crystallised into an enforceable one, once a child's needs had been assessed. If that had been the intention, parliament would have had to have expressed such a process in the Act.
Children Act 1989 17(1) - Housing Act 1996 176 189(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Briffett v Director of Public Prosecutions; Bradshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 26 November 2001; [2002] EMLR 12
6 Nov 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Newman
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
A bare order restricting reporting under the section was too vague to allow a later prosecution for contempt. Crook had established that the court must specify just what restrictions are to apply.
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39(1) 39(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re D (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1775
8 Nov 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
In re A (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1795
12 Nov 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
D (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 1827
14 Nov 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment Times, 12 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 960; [2002] ELR 214
15 Nov 2001
Admn
Justice Elias
Education, Children, Human Rights
A genuine religious belief which supported the use of corporal punishment in schools was not itself either a manifestation of religious belief which required protection under the convention, or a religious and philosophical conviction for the purposes of the right to education provisions of article 2. A religiously founded belief that corporal punishment should be imposed was not a philosophical or religious conviction.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 2, 9 - Education Act 1996 548
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In re B (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1968
22 Nov 2001
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Ward LJ
Children
Contact arrangements.
[ Bailii ]

 
 A Local Authority v A and D; FD 5-Dec-2001 - Unreported, 5 December 2001
 
Re A and D (Non-Accidental Injury: Subdural Haematomas [2001] EWHC Fam 9; [2002] 1 FLR 337
5 Dec 2001
FD
Butler Sloss P
Children
Butler Sloss P said: "the degree of force required to cause subdural haematomas need not be as great as previously believed. It remains however equally clear that the force used must be out of the normal rough and tumble of family life and must be unacceptable and inappropriate and obviously so. Each case of course has to be decided on its own facts. This is likely to be an evolving area of research. . The courts must however continue to deal with medical evidence on the basis of generally recognised medical opinion, giving due weight in the individual case to any advances in medical knowledge."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
R (Children) v R (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 1880
7 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Keene And Sir Swinton Thomas
Children, Litigation Practice
The parents sought defined contact arrangements after a divorce, with differing proposals. It was said that the father had been unable to move on following the relationship breakdown, and the mother sought a condition on contact that the father receive psychiatric assessment. The father came to reject the judge's independence. The court made contact orders but also orders restraining publication of the matters before the court, and against the husband. He now appealed, asking the order to be set aside because he had not been given a fair hearing. Held: The burden on a party in establishing bias is substantial. In his relationship with a litigant in person, the judge must be a shepherd and not a wolf. Parts of the order were immoderate and not supported by any evidence of need. The appeal was allowed in part, removing certain parts of the order, and extending the contact.
[ Bailii ]
 
B (A Child), Re [2001] EWCA Civ 2043
13 Dec 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re W and G (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 2038
17 Dec 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re O-S (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 2039
17 Dec 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Re K (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 2030
17 Dec 2001
CA

Children

[ Bailii ]
 
A Health Authority v Dr X and Others [2002] 1 FLR 1045; Times, 01 February 2002; [2001] Lloyds (Medical) 349; [2001] EWCA Civ 2014; [2002] Fam Law 342; [2002] 2 All ER 780; [2002] 2 FCR 357
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Harrison
Litigation Practice, Children, Health Professions
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 insufficient direct knowledge of the issues and people involved.
Children Act 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.