Supervision Order in UK Law

There is no direct guidance in the Act on the criteria to be applied on the hearing of an extension application. One has to stand back and look at the purpose of the extension of the supervision order. In previous legislation the supervision order might run for a period up to 3 years. Schedule 3 Part IIparagraph 6(1) now brings a supervision order to an end after one year but by paragraph (3) on application by the supervisor the court may extend it for such period as it may specify.

If s31 was to be imported into an application to extend an existing supervision order there would be no purpose to the specific provision in schedule 3 Part II paragraph 6. Looking at the framework of the Act the s31 application was clearly not intended to be invoked on extension applications and bearing in mind the earlier provision for a three year period the purpose of the alteration is in my view clear.

It will be the duty of everyone to ensure that, in those cases where a supervision order is proportionate as a response to the risk presented, a supervision order can be made to work, as indeed the framers of the Children Act always hoped that it would be made to work. The local authorities must deliver the services that are needed and must secure that other agencies, including the health service, also plays their part, and the parents must co-operate fully.

The nature of a Supervision Order is to help and assist a child where the parents have full responsibility for the care and upbringing. It does not involve any statutory level of monitoring and it does not give the local authority parental responsibility. Any conditions attached to a Supervision Order cannot in themselves be enforced by the Court.

A child's circumstances may “require” statutory intervention, perhaps may even “require” the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers, but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily “require” that the child be adopted. The question, at the end of the day, is whether what is “required” is adoption.

The judge will not know which individual was responsible for inflicting the injuries. The child may suffer harm if left in a situation of risk with his parents. Above all, I recognise that this interpretation of the attributable condition means that parents who may be wholly innocent, and whose care may not have fallen below that of a reasonable parent, will face the possibility of losing their child, with all the pain and distress this involves.

An appellate judge may conclude that the trial judge's conclusion on proportionality was (i) the only possible view, (ii) a view which she considers was right, (iii) a view on which she has doubts, but on balance considers was right, (iv) a view which she cannot say was right or wrong, (v) a view on which she has doubts, but on balance considers was wrong, (vi) a view which she considers was wrong, or (vii) a view which is unsupportable.