|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court of Appeal; s.3(1)
CA 1989, ss. 21, 24(2)(a),
25(2), 38 & 44 of ACA
2002, criteria for interlocutory
injunction in public law;
jurisdiction of County Court to
grant foster carer an injunction
preventing the Local Authority
from placing a child where there
is a Placement Order enabling
the Local Authority; the stage
when a child is placed for
adoption; the procedure to be
followed by adoption agency
subsequent to the making of a
Placement Order. Procedure for
foster carer’s application for
an Adoption Order. Foster
carer’s failure to seek leave of
the Court to apply for a
revocation of a Placement Order.
Foster carer’s failure to give
notice of intention to adopt,
effect of non-compliance.
|
Coventry
City Council v PGO & Ors [2011]
EWCA Civ 729
|
|
|
A 13-year-old
girl, sought to attend the
hearing of an application by her
local authority to keep her in
secure accommodation for three
months. Court held that ....there was no convincing evidence that attendance
would be psychologically
harmful to K, and because the
practical difficulties were
manageable..........there
is no reason why the court
should be privileged from
having to witness and deal
with situations that social
workers have to handle day in,
day out.
...................................................................................................
in
Re LM (A Child) the judge made an
order that L should attend
for the purpose of giving
evidence via video link in
the care proceedings. L's
guardian applied for
permission to appeal the
decision. The appeal
was dismissed inter alia
that the likely
adverse consequences
to L of her giving
oral evidence are not
of such gravity as to
amount to oppression.
|
Re
K (A Child) [2011] EWHC 1082 Fam (16
May 2011)
Re
LM (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 9 (19
January 2007)
|
|
|
In
Re X Y, the Respondents submitted
and it was accepted by the
Court that the local
authority's conduct of its
obligations as to disclosure fell
outside the band of what can be
described as "reasonable
conduct".....that the principal responsibility for
failing to identify and disclose
the relevant documents in this
case rests with the local
authority and was attributable,
to a considerable extent, to the
chaotic and disorganised way in
which its records were kept. The
documents produced halfway
through the hearing and inserted
in bundle BB included material
that was obviously highly
relevant, ......The
local authority's failure to
disclose certain
documents in bundle was
manifestly unreasonable.
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET
case, allegation of
misconduct against local
authority team manager; at
a subsequent hearing the
judge ordered the local
authority to pay (1) 50% of
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th to
6th and 7th Respondents'
costs of the proceedings as
assessed by the Legal
Services Commission
and (2) the costs
of preparing all transcripts
ordered to be produced
within the proceedings.]
|
Re
X, Y, Z (Minors) EWHC 1267 (Fam)
Bath
& North East Somerset Council v
A Mother & Ors [2008] EWHC B10
(Fam)
|
|
|
On the specific facts
involving tradition and cultural
sensitivities, before the
Court could properly determine the
likelihood and severity of allegedly
adverse consequences of disclosure,
the court should permit completion
of a professional risk assessment in
relation to them.
|
A
Mother v A Father & Ors [2009]
EWCA Civ 1057
|
Emergency
Protection Order
|
"Before
public authorities have recourse
to emergency measures in such
delicate issues as care orders,
the imminent danger should be
actually established. It is true
that in obvious cases of danger no
involvement of the parents is
called for. However, if it is
still possible to hear the parents
of the children and to discuss
with them the necessity of the
measure, there should be no room
for an emergency action, in
particular when, like in the
present case, the danger had
already existed for a long
period."
|
Re
X Council v B & Ors [2004] EWHC
2015 (Fam)
|
|
|
|
|
European
Convention on Human Rights
Interim Care Order - Articles 6
and 8
|
Procedural
fairness is something mandated
not merely by Art 6 but also by
Art 8. To an extent – and whilst
the care proceedings themselves
are on foot – Arts 6 and 8 march
side by side ……..But in relation to the procedural
requirements imposed by Art 8,
it also important for local
authorities to appreciate,
as the Court said in Re
L at paragraph [88],
that:'The
protection afforded ….. by Art 8
…… is not confined to
unfairness in the trial
process… Art 8 guarantees
fairness in the decision-making
process at all stages
of child protection.'
|
Westminster
City Council v RA & Ors [2005]
EWHC 970 (Fam)
|
|
|
Appeal
Court upheld a Care Order; inter
alia, mother received intensive
support for a period of time and
it shored up her own capacity,
but that incapacity is not
because she has borderline
Learning disability but is due
to her inability to provide
consistent and good enough
parenting and her inability to
form relationships which last
and when they break down she
quickly seeks a replacement.
|
Re
G (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 1054
|
Leave to
withdraw Care Order
application
|
There were cost
implications, in a case where within the six months of
commencing proceedings the
local authority twice sought to
persuade the court to authorise
the immediate interim removal of
the children from the care of
their parents, and after
six months the local authority
sought leave to withdraw the
proceedings in their entirety.
|
Re
X, Y and Z [2010] EWHC B12 (Fam)
|
|
|
Inter alia, the Court
emphasised how the use of
undertaking coupled with time
limit can be an effective tool
in litigation and gave an
example: "We invite you to
give an undertaking that you
will take no steps to place (the
child) with prospective
adopters pending the hearing of
our client's application. If
that undertaking is not received
by 10.00 am on 18 January, we
shall apply without notice in
the first instance to the County
Court for an order in those
terms."
|
Re
F (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 439
|
Local Authority
accommodation
|
Local
authorities have to look after
the children in their area
irrespective of where they are
habitually resident. They may
then pass a child on to the
area where he is ordinarily
resident under section 20(2)
or recoup the cost of
providing for him under
section 29(7). But there
should be no more passing the
child from pillar to post
while the authorities argue
about where he comes from."
..................................................................................................................................
GC
v LD - A child was placed
with PGM by the local
authority but ceased to be a
looked after child upon the
making of the residence
order in favour of PGM.
Therefore the PGM will look
to the authority for support
in relation to a proposed
special guardianship order.
|
A
v Leicester City Council &
London Borough of Hillingdon [2009]
EWHC 2351 (Admin)
GC
v LD & Ors [2009] EWHC 1942
(Fam)
|
 |
|
|
|