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.’
Judges:
Hale LJ
Citations:
[2001] 1 FLR 872
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited – North Yorkshire County Council v SA and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180421
