Croydon London Borough v A and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
HOLLINGS, J
Appeal – to High Court from magistrates' court – nature of appeal – not full rehearing.
Children – application for interim care orders – local authority proposing to place two young children with mother for assessment – magistrates refusing to make interim care orders – making prohibited steps orders to ensure bonding of children with mother – whether decision justified on the facts.
Procedure – application for interim care order – magistrates considering prohibited steps order – failure to give parties opportunity of addressing them on the issue – defect in procedure.
Prohibited steps order – order forbidding parents to contact each other – whether such an order fell within the statutory definition of a prohibited steps order.
The parents, who were not married, had two children: the elder was born on 20 February 1990 and the younger on 12 October 1991. In May 1991 the elder child was found to have suffered non-accidental injuries. A place of safety order was obtained and care proceedings begun. In June 1991 the father was arrested for causing the injuries to the elder child and was remanded in custody. From July 1991 the child had staying access with the mother who said that her relationship with the father was over. On 12 September 1991 a supervision order was made in respect of the elder child and he was returned to the mother. On 17 September 1991 the father was released on bail subject to conditions, one of which was that he did not go to the mother's address. On 23 November 1991 a violent incident involving the father and other people occurred in the flat below that in which the mother was living. The father received stab
wounds. He was in breach of his bail conditions by being there. On 13 December 1991 emergency protection orders were made in respect of both children. They were placed with foster parents after the mother had declined a placement for herself and the children. On 19 December 1991 the local authority applied for interim care orders. The local authority's intention was to place the children with the mother for assessment with a view to rehabilitation and to protect the children from the father. The magistrates found as a fact that, notwithstanding her statements to the contrary, the mother had been in continuous contact with the father. Further, the magistrates stated that they were satisfied that there were grounds for believing that both children were likely to suffer significant harm. At the end of the hearing on the first day the magistrates indicated that they had reached their decision but would announce it and give their reasons the following day. At the resumed hearing the next day the magistrates declined to make interim care orders and made the two following prohibited steps orders:
(1) Prohibiting the father from having any contact with the children and prohibiting the mother from allowing any contact by the father with the children.
(2) Prohibiting the mother from having any verbal or personal contact or contact by correspondence with the father and in the same way prohibiting the father from having any form of contact with the mother.
By s 8(1) of the Children Act 1989 it is provided:
"In this Act –
'a prohibited steps order' means an order that no step which could be taken by a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for a child, and which is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court."
The local authority appealed. It was submitted that the magistrates had erred in that (i) the second prohibited steps order fell outside the terms of s 8(1) of the 1989 Act; (ii) they failed to give the parties the opportunity of making representations before making prohibited steps orders instead of interim care orders; and (iii) their decision was plainly wrong on the merits.
Held – allowing the appeal: (1) By RSC Ord 55 r 3 an appeal to the High Court from a magistrates' court was "by way of rehearing". However, this did not mean a full rehearing in which fresh evidence could be called. In this context "rehearing" meant that the appellate court had a wide ranging power to consider and deal with the way in which the court below came to its decision. The parties would not be entitled to call evidence unless there were exceptional circumstances and leave was given. Further, the principles stated in G v G [1985] 1 WLR 647 applied. The appellate court would not interfere with the discretion of the court below unless it considered that the court was plainly wrong or had erred in principle. Also, this was an interim matter and interim orders were not lightly interfered with because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re T (Care Order)
...1593 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 1031. B (care or supervision order), Re[1997] 1 FCR 309, [1996] 2 FLR 693. Croydon London Borough v A (No 3) [1992] 2 FCR 481, [1992] 2 FLR 350. Devon CC v S[1992] 1 FCR 550, [1992] 3 All ER 793, [1992] Fam 176, [1992] 2 FLR 244, [1992] 3 WLR 273. G v G [1985] 2 All......
-
Re K (supervision orders)
...orders), Re[1997] 1 FCR 309. CB and JB (minors) (care proceedings: case conduct), Re[1998] 2 FCR 313. Croydon London BC v A and B[1992] 2 FCR 481. D (a minor) (basis of uncontested care order), Re[1995] 2 FCR 681. Devon CC v S[1992] 1 FCR 550, [1992] Fam 176, [1992] 3 All ER 793, [1992] 3 W......
-
Re CB (A Minor) (Parental Responsibility Order)
...CN (A Minor) (Care Order), Re[1992] 2 FCR 401; sub nom Kent County Council v C [1992] 3 WLR 808. Croydon London Borough v A and Another[1992] 1 FCR 522; [1992] 3 WLR 267; [1992] 3 All ER Croydon London Borough v A and B[1992] 2 FCR 481. G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985......
-
F v Kent County Council
...1991, r 21(2). Magistrates' Courts Rules 1992, rr 3 and 14. RSC Ord 55 r 7(2). Cases referred to:Croydon London Borough v A and Another[1992] 1 FCR 522; [1992] 3 WLR G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985] 2 All ER 225. AppealAppeal from West Malling family proceedings court......