Ward of Court in UK Law

I merely observe that cases such as this demonstrate the continuing need for a remedy which, despite its antiquity, has shown, is showing and must continue to show a remarkable adaptability to meet the ever emerging needs of an ever changing world. I add that the use of the jurisdiction in cases where the risk to a child is of harm of the type that would engage Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention – risk to life or risk of degrading or inhuman treatment – is surely unproblematic.

The origin of the wardship jurisdiction is the duty of the Crown to protect its subjects and particularly children who are the generations of the future. It is exercised by the courts on behalf of the Crown (see per Latey J. in In re "X" (a Minor) (1975) Fam. 47, 52). The machinery for its exercise is an application to make the child a ward of court.

I accept that the representation of children in family proceedings, and the role of the Official Solicitor, are matters of public interest which can and should be discussed publicly. I also accept that a boy of 15 may be sufficiently mature to be able to speak directly to, and be interviewed by, representatives of the press or broadcasting media. However there can be no public interest in the identity of the members of this family: that would be only public curiosity.

As I have said, the court exercises what is, in substance and reality, a jurisdiction in relation to incompetent adults which is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its well-established jurisdiction in relation to children. There is little, if any, practical difference between the types of orders that can be made in exercise of the two jurisdictions.

If this construction be correct, it means that Parliament has created an entirely new offence, not known to the law before. Just see what it means. The existence of wardship does not give the ward a privilege over and above otheryoung people who are not wards. It does not give her exemption from comment on her activities, be they favourable or adverse, be they helpful to her or injurious. The remedy for defamatory remarks about a ward is the law of libel, not of contempt of court.

It is true that interim orders may be made before service and special cases may arise but generally speaking I would think it a reasonable rule that at the latest when the proceedings have been served the jurisdiction has been invoked and unless the proceedings are stayed or some equivalent action has been taken I would treat the court's jurisdiction as being continuously invoked thereafter until the application is disposed of.

When an infant becomes a ward of court, control over the person of the infant is vested in the Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court, It is for the Judge to say by order from time to time where the ward is to reside and with whom, and disobedience to such an order is con tempt of court by anyone who knowingly breaches or is party to a breach of that order.