G and Others v Local Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Munby,Mr Justice Munby |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: NP00C00128 |
| Date | 24 March 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 551 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
CARDIFF DISTRICT REGISTRY
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Munby
Case No: NP00C00128
In the Matter of G (children)
The names of the parties' representatives are omitted in the interests of anonymity
Hearing date (in Cardiff) : 3 March 2003
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment was handed down in private but the judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported under the title Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority's Decision).
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Not for the first time, and I fear not for the last time, parents complain – with all too much justification – that they have been treated unfairly by a local authority seeking to remove their children.
This particular case has had a happy ending. But the facts reveal what I can only call a 'mindset' and a 'culture' so seemingly oblivious to the imperative requirements of article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and so unwittingly careless of the need to treat parents with fairness, that I cannot let the matter pass without some comment.
For the parents, of course, this case was one of the utmost gravity and significance: they were threatened with the loss of four of their children. But there was, in truth, nothing particularly difficult or out of the ordinary in this case. In many ways it was a very typical kind of care case involving a very typical local authority. This in many ways makes the 'mindset' and 'culture' to which I have referred all the more concerning. For it suggests that even some two years after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, and, as we shall see, despite no lack of relevant judicial authority, some very important and basic messages have still not worked their way through into day-to-day practice on the ground.
I do not wish to be too critical of the particular local authority involved in this case. The experienced children's guardian suggested that what had happened in this case was not so very much out of the ordinary. I fear she may well be right, but whilst this indicates that it would not be right to single this particular authority out for special blame it does serve to re-emphasise the need for the message to be spelt out to the widest possible audience. Hence I am giving leave for this judgment to be reported, albeit on the usual strictly anonymous basis.
The facts
On 22 June 2000 after contested care proceedings the Circuit Judge made care orders in relation to four children in favour of a local authority which I shall refer to as Authority X. Though it was recognised that there were risks involved, the care plans which the judge approved provided for rehabilitation of the children to their mother and father. That took place in September 2000, by which time the parents were living in the area of another local authority which I shall refer to as Authority Y. Thereafter the care plans were supervised on a day to day basis by Authority Y. There were looked after children review meetings on 16 July 2002 in relation to each of the children. These were attended by the mother and by A, a senior practitioner in the social services department of Authority Y. The minutes of these meetings (which for some reason were not prepared until 16 September 2002) contain nothing to indicate that there were at that time any real areas of concern in relation to the children, let alone anything to suggest that the children might have to be removed.
On 15 August 2002 A wrote to Authority X expressing Authority Y's concerns about the children. On 4 September 2002 a team manager at Authority Y contacted B, the relevant team manager at Authority X, to express Authority Y's growing concerns about the children. It was agreed that there would be a meeting between A and B. On 5 September 2002 there was a discussion between B and C, the relevant service manager at Authority X, during which it was agreed that B would meet with A to ascertain further information. It was agreed between B and C that, should the concerns raised be significant, this information would be brought to a Pre Admission to Care Panel meeting so that it could be considered by senior managers within Authority X.
On 11 September 2002 there was a meeting between A and B. The information supplied by A was such as to lead Authority X to decide that it should be presented to the Pre Admission to Care Panel for its consideration.
On 12 September A visited the mother. She told the mother that she had met with Authority X and that, due to ongoing concerns, the option of the children being received into care had been discussed.
On 13 September 2002 D and E, two social workers with Authority X, became involved for the first time with the family. They visited the family the same day, according to D's subsequent affidavit,
"to meet the family and explain the process of the Pre Admission Panel and the possible outcomes of this. It was made clear to both [father] and [mother] that a decision had not been made at that time and that only once the panel had considered the information would a decision regarding the possible re-accommodation of the [children] be made."
On 18 September 2002 the Pre Admission to Care Panel met. The information passed on to Authority X by A was presented to "senior management". Who those persons were I do not know. There appear to be no minutes or other written records of the meeting: certainly none have ever been produced, either to the parents or to the court. The meeting decided that the level of concern justified the children's re-admission to care.
On 20 September 2002 D and E visited the parents to inform them of what had happened, to explain the decision of the meeting and to tell them that the local authority would now look to place the children in care, though there would be a delay whilst the local authority found appropriate placements.
On 3 October 2002 the parents' solicitor wrote to Authority X saying that mother "is under the impression that you intend to remove the children from our clients' care" and asking for urgent confirmation as to "whether or not these are your intentions". Authority X's head of legal services replied on 14 October 2002 saying that Authority X "is actively considering whether or not the [children] should be removed from your clients' full time care". That, I have to say, is a less than satisfactory statement, given that the decision to remove the children had in fact already been taken and, indeed, communicated to the parents. The letter went on to identify the local authority's concerns as "including":
"1 The appalling home conditions.
2 Your clients being evicted from their accommodation.
3 Your client's inability to act on the advice of professionals.
4 A number of missed appointments with the Housing Department, LAC medical appointments.
5 [Father] continuing to drive without a licence/insurance which has previously led to him receiving a custodial sentence.
6 The [children's] appalling attendance at school, which ranges from 29% to 77% …
7 The children's sexualised behaviour."
The letter said that a planning meeting would take place with the parents on 21 October 2002 "when plans for the children will be discussed". In fact no such meeting ever took place.
On 29 October 2002 the parents' solicitor wrote again to Authority X, asking for confirmation as to whether or not the children were to be removed and, if so, when. He also asked to be informed of the date of the next planning meeting. The letter referred expressly to the parents' right to bring proceedings under either section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 or section 39 of the Children Act 1989. The response dated 31 October 2002 said that:
"the Department plans to remove the [children] from the full time care of your clients. No specific date has yet been fixed, as the Department is currently identifying suitable foster care placements. I will inform you of the planned date of removal of the children from your clients care when I receive that date from the Social Services Department."
On 6 November 2002 the parents' solicitor wrote again asking the local authority to "clarify what decision making process has led to your decision to remove the children and how far [the parents] have been involved in this." He said that the parents were intending to apply for injunctive relief under section 7 of the 1998 Act. The reply dated 12 November 2002 read in material part as follows:
"I can confirm that your clients were informed of the level of concerns that professionals had for the care of the children. The social worker who is dealing with your clients from [Authority Y] informed your clients that should the level of concern persist, then this Authority would be informed.
I can confirm that the children's social workers [D] and [E] have been a regular contact with your clients and have ensured that the parents have been involved in an open and honest information sharing process.
I can confirm that your clients will be invited to the planning meeting with professionals when foster placements have been identified for the [children]."
I do not know exactly what the author meant to refer to when he spoke of an "open and honest information sharing process"....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.S. (a minor suing by his guardian ad litem and next friend, M.L) v The Health Service Executive
...N v HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (HSE) & ORS UNREP SUPREME 13.11.2006 2006 IESC 60 RE G (CARE: CHALLENGE TO LOCAL AUTHORITY'S DECISION) 2003 EWHC 551 (FAM) EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8 MCMICHAEL v UNITED KINGDOM 1995 20 EHRR 205 RE X BARNET LONDON BOROUGH COU......
-
Re A (A Child)(Deprivation of Liberty); C (Vulnerable Adult)(Deprivation of Liberty)
...obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (as to which see, for example, Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority's Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42, and G v E and others [2010] EWHC 621 (Fam) at para [88]). Moreover, it is likely to be nothing but counter-productive w......
-
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
...Re[2000] 3 FCR 30, [2001] Fam 38, [2000] 3 WLR 1740, [2000] 2 FLR 512, CA. G (care: challenge to local authority’s decision), Re[2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR Hoppe v Germany[2003] 1 FCR 176, [2003] 1 FLR 384, ECt HR. J v C [1969] 1 All ER 788, [1970] AC 668, [1969] 2 WLR 540, HL. Joha......
-
Re A (A Child)(Deprivation of Liberty); C (Vulnerable Adult)(Deprivation of Liberty)
...obligations under Art 8 of the Convention (as to which see, for example, Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority's Decision)UNK[2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42, and G v E and othersMHLR[2010] MHLR 364 at para [88]). Moreover, it is likely to be nothing but counter-productive when it ......
-
‘Too Well-Travelled’, Not Well-Formed? The Reform of ‘Criminality Information Sharing’ in the UK
...is something mandated not merely byArticle 6, but also by Article 8.’ Munby J, Re G (Care: Challengeto Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (FAM) [34]. Seealso W v UK (1987) 10 EHRR 29; McMichael v UK (1995) 20EHRR 205, [87]; R (S) v Plymouth City Council [2002] 1 WLR583, [48]; Conno......
-
Clare’s Law, or the national Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme
...fairness is something mandated not merely by Article 6, but also by Article8’, Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam) [34], per MunbyJ(ashethenwas).‘[There are] standards of procedural fairness mandated in [certain circumstances] both by the common law an......