Cheshire County Council v B and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
THORPE, J
Care order – review – whether court had jurisdiction to insert a condition for review of care order and care plan.
Care order – review – contact – whether court could make a care order and an interim contact order with a view to reviewing contact.
A family proceedings court made care orders in respect of the four children of a family. The court made further orders as to contact. These each stated in para 2:
"The court orders that the local authority shall permit contact between the child and [each of the other children and the parents]."
When making the orders the chairman of the magistrates went on to say that the court would review the operation of the care orders, the progress in the care plan, and the contact after six months. The clerk to the justices doubted whether the magistrates had jurisdiction so to order, but after prolonged communication with the parties drew up orders which reflected the pronouncement of the chairman. Paragraph 3 of both the care orders and the contact orders stated:
"The court will review the operation of the care order, the progress in the care plan and the contact at the expiration of a period of six months commencing with the date of this order."
The local authority appealed, contending that the condition contained in para 3 of each of the orders was ultra vires in its entirety.
Held – allowing the appeal: In so far as para 3 of each of the orders stated that the court would review the operation of the care orders and the progress of the care plan after six months, it was ultra vires and could not stand. However, the powers of the court to make orders as to contact were contained in s 34 of the Children Act 1989. By subs (2) of that section, the court could make such an order as it considered appropriate as to contact, and by subs (7) the court could impose such conditions as it considered appropriate. The language of s 34 was sufficiently wide to enable the court to make what was, in effect, an interim contact order with specific provision for a further hearing with a view to making some more enduring provision for contact at the subsequent hearing. In the present case, however, the orders were drawn in such
vague terms as to have little meaning and there was no obvious reason why any order so indefinitely drawn should have attached to it a provision for specific review. Further, the provision for review of contact was part and parcel of a provision which in its main part was manifestly ultra vires. Therefore, para 3 of each of the orders would be deleted in its entirety.
AppealAppeal from Vale Royal family proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re B (Children in Care: Contact)
...cases cited to Court of AppealAdams v Adams [1984] FLR 768. C v C (Custody of Children) [1988] FCR 411. Cheshire County Council v B[1992] 2 FCR 572. CN (A Minor) (Custody Appeal), Re[1992] 2 FCR 401; sub nom Kent County Council v C [1992] 3 WLR Cossey v Cossey (1980) 11 Fam Law 56. G v G (M......