Tag: Children

Re L and H (Residential Assessment); CT and Another v Bristol City Council and others: CA 14 Mar 2007

Application for leave to appeal against refusal to order residential assessment under section 38(6). ECHR Articles 6 and 8, and the underlying philosophy of the 1989 Act, required that a case be fully investigated and that all the relevant evidence necessary should be in place before children were permanently removed from their natural families and placed for adoption with strangers.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 213, [2007] 1 FLR 1370

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption) CA 1-May-2008
The father sought to revoke a freeing order. He said that the social workers had conspired to exclude him from the process. The child was born of a casual relationship, and at first he was unaware of the proceedings. On learning of them he sought to . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) CA 12-Aug-2008
The mother of the child applied for leave to appeal against an order under section 38(9), seeking a residential assessment.
Held: The judge had been exercising a discretion which he had done properly, and the court would not interfere with it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250010

LM (A Child) v Medway Council and others: CA 19 Jan 2007

Smith LJ set out the approach when a court considered asking a child to attend at court to give evidence in family proceedings: ‘The correct starting point . . is that it is undesirable that a child should have to give evidence in care proceedings and that particular justification will be required before that course is taken. There will be some cases in which it will be right to make an order. In my view they will be rare . . the judge will have to balance the need for the evidence in the circumstances of the case against what he assesses to be the potential for harm to the child. In assessing the need for oral evidence . . the judge should, in my view, take account of the importance of the evidence to the process of his decision about the child’s future. It may be that the child’s future cannot satisfactorily be determined without that evidence. In assessing the risk of harm or oppression, the judge should take heed of current research into the effect on children of giving evidence and should not rely only upon his impression of the child, although that will of course be relevant.’

Judges:

Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 9, [2007] 1 FLR 1698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v B County Council, ex parte P CA 1991
Application was made for judicial review of a decision of the magistrate in proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act. The issue arose as to whether or not young children should be compelled to give evidence.
Held: The decision of . .
Cited – Re P (Witness Summons) CA 1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC 3-Mar-2010
The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247932

S County Council v B: FD 29 Jul 1999

The guardian ad litem of three children made an application, supported by the local authority and the mother of the three children that the father be ordered to disclose in these proceedings (a) the identity of, and (b) copies of, the reports and notes of the medical experts the father is proposing to instruct in connection with the preparation and presentation of his defence to criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings have been brought against him under s 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in respect of injuries suffered by N.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Fam 1, [2000] Fam Law 462, [2000] 1 FCR 536, [2000] Fam 76, [2000] 2 FLR 161, [2000] 3 WLR 53

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.263377

Re H (Parental Responsibility): FD 15 Jul 1998

A natural father could properly be refused a parental responsibility order where there was evidence of his having injured one other child by bruising. Behaviour to child’s half brother could be relevant.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1998, [1998] 1 FLR 855

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.85794

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Holmes and Others: FD 20 Oct 2000

A newspaper sought to investigate the policies adopted by the council as regards inter-racial fostering. The council relied upon the Act to justify restrictions it sought to be imposed on the reporting. The case was not affected by the Children Act, and therefore no balancing exercise was required. The policy restricting publication was to be looked at under the convention, and limited only to the extent required. The injunction would be relaxed to permit publication provided the case was appropriately anonymised, and social workers with no opportunity to answer criticism were not named.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 1(1), European Convention on Human Rights 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.88779

Re M (Disclosure): FD 20 May 1998

Children proceedings must not become overburdened by expert evidence which vastly increase expense. Closer case management was urged by courts as urged. Disclosure of background reports to a legal adviser under conditions of confidentiality was discussed.

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 Order 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court v K HL 1965
Legal representatives of a party were entitled to have disclosed to them of ‘behind the scenes’ investigation in a care matter in which their client was involved, but should be requested to undertake not to pass on details to their client. . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re W (Children) (Care proceedings: Disclosure) FD 11-Jul-2003
The authority had received confidential information from the police about mistreatment of a child by a father. The allegation was unknown to the mother. It sought directions from the court as to the extent to which it could breach that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.85822

London Borough of Brent v C: FD 28 Apr 2016

‘This case raises issues both as to the end-of-life treatment of a very ill child, and as to alleged breaches of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, in relation to which damages were claimed. ‘

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1335 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Human Rights, Health Professions

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.565529

Re G, S and M (Wasted Costs): FD 20 Sep 1999

The court discussed the duty of counsel and their instructing solicitors in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 to ensure that expert witnesses are kept up to date with events in the case; and, in particular, that before expert witnesses are called to give oral evidence, they have been sent and have read all relevant documents, particularly those which have emerged since their reports were written.

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Fam 828, [2000] 1 FLR 52, [1999] 4 All ER 371, [1999] 3 FCR 303, [2000] Fam 104, [2000] 2 WLR 1007, [2000] Fam Law 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.263378

Re Birchall; Wilson v Birchall: CA 1880

In the administration of his estate the widow of the deceased took out a summons asking for a declaration that a large amount of personal property was held by the deceased as trustee for her and so did not fall into his estate. A compromise was suggested dividing the chattels between the widow and the estate. Counsel for infant beneficiaries refused to assent, the guardian being opposed to the compromise.
Held: A court cannot force a litigation friend to enter into a compromise against his wishes.
Jessel MR said: ‘This is not approving of a compromise, but compelling one. What jurisdiction has the court to do so? . . In my opinion the course which has been taken in this case is quite unprecedented. The court can approve of a compromise on behalf of infants, but it cannot force one upon them against the opinion of their advisers. The practice . . has been to require not only that the compromise should be assented to by the next friend or guardian of the infant, but that his solicitor should make an affidavit that he believes the compromise to be beneficial to the infant, and that his counsel should give an opinion that he considers it to be so . . This is the first time that I have known a compromise enforced upon infants, against the opinion of their guardians or next friend and of their legal advisers, and I am of the opinion that the orders cannot stand.’

Judges:

Jessel MR, James and Cotton LJJ

Citations:

(1880) 16 Ch D 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bailey v Warre CA 7-Feb-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident. His claim was compromised and embodied in a court order, but later a question was raised as to whether he had had mental capacity at the time to make the compromise he had.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Children

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.238880

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 the case of In re V been cited. It should have been and would have demonstrated that although minor breaches of the guidance should be rooted out, that did not mean that a minor breach was an infringement of the parent’s human rights.

Judges:

Mr Justice Wilson, Mr Justice Bennett Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

Times 21-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 545, [2006] 2 FCR 107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority) FD 2001
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 . .
Cited – In re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) FD 2002
The court set out precepts to be followed by courts in preparing for care proceedings so as to ensure that they did not infringe the rights of the family to respect for their family life under article 8.
Munby J said: ‘ . . it must never be . .
Cited – In re V (a Child) (Care: pre-birth actions) CA 12-Oct-2004
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barracks v Coles and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-Jul-2006
The claimant sought to allege race discrimination and appealed refusal by the respondents to release required documents. She had been turned down for an appointment to the Trident task force, and sought disclosure of the reasons. The respondent said . .
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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241649

M (Children) (Contact Order): CA 11 Apr 2005

Where a contemnor sould be fined but would be unable to pay a fine at the level thought appropriate, that was not a good reason to impose imprisonment.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 615, [2005] 2 FLR 1006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 14.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others ChD 13-Nov-2006
The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding . .
Cited – Aspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226140

Purrucker v Valles Perez: ECJ 20 May 2010

EU (Opinion) Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility Provisional measures Custody.

Citations:

C-256/09, [2010] EUECJ C-256/09 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 1) ECJ 15-Jul-2010
ECJ (Judgment) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – . .
See Also – Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 2) ECJ 9-Nov-2010
Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Lis pendens – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.416435

In re T (A Child), (Order for Costs): CA 21 Mar 2005

The court re-affirmed what were described as the ‘well-established principles’ relating to costs in private law applications.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 311, [2005] 2 FLR 681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – D and D W v Portsmouth Hospital NHS; in re W (A Child) CA 3-May-2006
The claimants had sought court orders against the hospital to secure continuing life-supporting treatment for their daughter who had been born very severely disabled. The Trust now sought their costs from the various actions.
Held: The parents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Costs

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223781

In re S (A Child) (Residence order: condition) (No 2): CA 4 Dec 2002

Butler-Sloss LJ P referred to the exceptionality required before restricting a parents right to remove a child within the jurisdiction, saying: ‘the principle enunciated in Re E . . that the court ought not in other than exceptional circumstances to impose a condition on a residence order to a primary carer who is providing entirely appropriate care for the child.’

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Waller, Laws LJJ

Citations:

[2003] 1 FCR 138, [2002] EWCA Civ 1795

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In re F (Children) CA 27-Oct-2010
The mother appealed against refusal of a specific issue order requested to allow her to remove the four children with her from Cleveland to Stronsay in the Orkneys. Both parents were GPs and accepted to be excellent parents. She and her new partner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217905

J v C (An Infant): HL 19 Feb 1969

The House sought to construe the meaning of the words ‘shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration’. Lord MacDermott said: ‘it seems to me that they must mean more than that the child’s welfare is to be treated as the top item in a list of items relevant to the matter in question. I think they connote a process whereby, when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child’s welfare as that term has now to be understood. That is the first consideration because it is of first importance and the paramount consideration because it rules upon or determines the course to be followed.’ and

‘In applying section 1, the rights and wishes of parents, whether unimpeachable or otherwise, must be assessed and weighed in their bearing on the welfare of the child in conjunction with all other factors relevant to that issue.
While there is now no rule of law that the rights and wishes of unimpeachable parents must prevail over other considerations, such rights and wishes, recognised as they are by nature and society, can be capable of ministering to the total welfare of the child in a special way, and must therefore preponderate in many cases. The parental rights, however, remain qualified and not absolute for the purposes of the investigation the broad nature of which is still as described in the fourth of the principles enunciated by FitzGibbon L.J. in In Re O’Hara [1900] 2 I.R. 232, 240.’

Judges:

Lord MacDermott, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1970] AC 668, [1969] UKHL 4, [1969] 3 WLR 868, [1969] 3 All ER 1140

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gyngall 1893
The father of the child (a girl of about 15) was dead and it was the mother who was the guardian, it seems by operation of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886. The decision of the first instance court not to return the girl to her mother, despite . .
Cited – Re B’s Settlement, B v B 1940
Morton J said: ‘I desire to say quite plainly that in my view this Court is bound in every case, without exception, to treat the welfare of its ward as being the first and paramount consideration, whatever orders may have been made by the Courts of . .
Cited – McKee v McKee PC 15-Mar-1951
(Canada) There was a choice open to the trial judge facing a contest for the custody of a child: ‘It is possible that a case might arise in which it appeared to a court, before which the question of custody of an infant came, that it was in the best . .
Cited – Re O’Hara 1900
(Ireland) FitzGibbon LJ SAID: ‘In exercising the jurisdiction to control or to ignore the parental right the court must act cautiously, not as if it were a private person acting with regard to his own child, and acting in opposition to the parent . .

Cited by:

Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Cited – In Re KD (A Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access) HL 1988
The local authority sought to terminate parental contact with a child taken into care under a wardship.
Held: The court had to consider the human rights of the parent as against the welfare interest of the child. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: . .
Cited – Re J (A Child), Re (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights); (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) HL 16-Jun-2005
The parents had married under shariah law. They left the US to return to the father’s home country Saudi Arabia. They parted, and the mother brought their son to England against the father’s wishes and in breach of an agreement. The father sought . .
Cited – CG v CW and Another (Children) CA 6-Apr-2006
A lesbian couple had split up and disputed the care of the children. An order had been made but then, in breach of that order, one removed the children overnight to Cornwall. An argument was made that the court had failed to give proper weight to . .
Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
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.
Cited – Re L (Psychologist – Duty To The Court) FD 20-Dec-2011
The court had made findings of non-accidental injury caused by the parents. A psychologist called in to assist the court was sympathetic to the parents invited the court to reconsider its findings of fact.
Held: The expert had gone beyond her . .
Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.211401

Regina on the Application of Keating v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: QBD 22 Jul 2004

Refusal of magistrates to make order prohibiting disclosure of child’s name on application for anti-social behaviour order.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1933 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200314