R v Croydon Juvenile Court, ex parte N
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1987 |
| Year | 1987 |
| Date | 1987 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
WATERHOUSE, J
Care proceedings – application by parent to discharge care orders – guardian ad litem and solicitor appointed for the children – solicitor for children applying to withdraw application – parent opposing withdrawal – duty of court.
Two children, now aged 6 and 4, were committed to the care of the local authority in July 1985. In June 1986 the mother began proceedings to apply for the care orders to be discharged. A guardian ad litem was appointed. When the matter came on for hearing in October 1986, the solicitor for the children applied to withdraw the application. The mother wished to pursue her application. The magistrates were referred to the decision in R v Wandsworth West Juvenile Court, ex parte S [1984] FLR 713 where it was held that the magistrates had a discretion whether or not to allow an application on behalf of the child to withdraw a parent's application to discharge a care order, and that the discretion could only be exercised judicially by hearing the merits of the case. The magistrates were of opinion that, as the decision in the Wandsworth case pre-dated the full implementation of s 32A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, that decision was not binding in a case where the application to discharge a care order was opposed and a guardian ad litem was appointed. The present law, the magistrates held, did not require the guardian ad litem to submit to a hearing in which the parent could participate, otherwise the effect would be to make the parent a party to the proceedings. The magistrates therefore granted the application to withdraw the proceedings.
The mother applied for judicial review.
Held – The decision in R v Wandsworth West Juvenile Court, ex parte S [1984] FLR 713 was binding on the juvenile court. It was necessary for the juvenile court to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to allow an application to discharge a care order to be withdrawn where the parent opposed withdrawal. The guardian ad litem was not invested with any special influence as an officer of the court. In holding that the view of the guardian ad litem must prevail the magistrates had plainly erred in law. R v Poole Juvenile Court and R v Southwark Juvenile Court, p 1 ante followed.
ApplicationApplication for judicial review from a decision of Croydon juvenile court.
Joanna Hall for the mother.
[1988] FCR 11 at 12
Nicholas Riddell for the children and guardian ad litem.
MR JUSTICE WATERHOUSE.This is an unopposed application by an unmarried mother for judicial review of a decision of the Croydon juvenile court made on 30 October 1986. The application comes before me by leave of Macpherson, J and relates to a decision by the justices to grant an application by the guardian ad litem of two children to withdraw an application made earlier for discharge of the care orders in respect of them. They are child SP, born on 5 October 1980, and child JP, born on 6 November 1982. The mother has two other children, but they are not relevant to the present application and it is unnecessary for me, for the purposes of this short judgment, to refer to any part of the history prior to 1985.
In the spring of that year, there was concern about the two minors who are the subject of these proceedings because of alleged violence by a man towards the mother and them. The mother herself sought help from the local authority's social services department. Eventually, that department obtained place of safety orders in respect of the children and care proceedings followed, under s 1(2)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. In those proceedings, the justices made an order under s 32A of the Act that the mother should not be treated as representing the children, who were thereafter to be represented by a guardian ad litem.
Eventually, the case came on for a full hearing before the court on 8 July 1985 and the mother acknowledged that at that time she had no home to offer the children. It was agreed, therefore, that care orders should be made in respect of SP and JP. There was no appeal from that decision so that the guardian ad litem became functus officio at that stage.
The children were placed with foster parents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd
... ... for damages Judge Harris Q.C., sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, held the defendants guilty of negligence, the plaintiff of contributory ... Croydon Corporation [1957] 2 Q.B. 154 ... The contrasts made by Lord Reid between ... ...
- R v Birmingham City Juvenile Court, ex parte Birmingham City Council
-
R v Birmingham City Juvenile Court, ex parte Birmingham City Council
...47 For my part, I would strongly endorse the approach to this matter adopted by Garland J. in The Queen v. Croydon Juvenile Court [1987] 1 FLR, 252, at page 260, where he explained why, in his view, the interests of justice and natural justice required the calling of evidence once it had be......
-
S v Merton London Borough
...Court, ex parte Birmingham City Council [1988] FCR 175; [1988] 1 WLR 337; [1988] 1 All ER 683. R v Croydon Juvenile Court, ex parte N (1987) 151 JP 523. AppealAppeal from Wimbledon family proceedings Constance Whippman for the parents. Jane Hill for the local authority. Christopher Wood for......