R v Harrow London Borough ex parte D
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1989 |
| Date | 1989 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
ANTHONY LINCOLN, J
Children – alleged physical abuse – denied by parent – case conference called – parent's request to attend case conference refused – whether case conference thereby unfair or unreasonable.
The parents of three children were divorced. The mother had custody and the father had fortnightly access. On 31 May 1986 the father complained to the local authority that the two elder children had serious bruising. A social worker took the children to a hospital for examination. At the hospital the eldest child said the mother had hit him. A doctor formed the opinion that the injury to the eldest child had been deliberately inflicted. The same day the social worker obtained a place of safety order in respect of the children. On 1 June 1986 another doctor examined the children. The mother told the doctor that the bruises were caused by the children fighting each other. The doctor was satisfied that the injuries to the eldest child were non-accidental and incompatible with the mother's explanation. On 2 June 1986 a friend of the mother told the social worker that the children had been fighting and that the eldest child had told the father that his mother had hit him because she had chastised him. The social worker saw the eldest child again but the child maintained that the mother had hit him. A case conference was arranged for 4 June 1986. The mother asked to be present but her request was refused. The case conference had full information. As a result of the conference it was decided to return the children to the mother but to place their names on the at risk register.
The mother applied for judicial review. She was of opinion that for the children's names to be put on the at risk register left a stigma on her reputation and therefore that it was a breach of natural justice that she was not allowed to be present at the case conference.
Held – refusing the application: It was doubtful whether a reference to "natural justice" was appropriate to the processes of a case conference. It was preferable to consider whether the conduct of the conference was unfair or unreasonable. Failure to invite the mother to the case conference was not in itself unfair. Professional opinion was divided as to whether parents should attend such conferences. The information available to this case conference was no less than would reasonably be expected if the local authority was to further the welfare and protection of the children. The purpose of the case conference was not to reach a verdict that the mother had been guilty of bruising the children or whether the children should be removed from the mother. At that stage the local authority was concerned to obtain advice as to the next step. In fact the children were returned to the mother. In the circumstances of this case the proceedings of the case conference were neither unfair or unreasonable.
[1989] FCR 407 at 408
R v Bedfordshire County Council, ex parte C (1987) 151 Jp 202 distinguished.
Per curiam: Although the mother's reputation would be likely to suffer if it became...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Devon County Council, ex parte L
-
Re C (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure to Landlords)
...ex p L [1991] FCR 599, [1991] 2 FLR 541. R v Harrow BC, ex p D [1989] FCR 729, [1990] Fam 133, [1989] 3 WLR 1239, [1990] 3 All ER 12, [1990] 1 FLR 79, X (disclosure of information), Re [2001] 2 FLR 440. ApplicationThe chief constable and the director of social services of an area applied fo......
-
D v Buckinghamshire County Council
...CC, ex p L [1991] FCR 599, [1991] 2 FLR 541. R v Harrow BC ex p D [1989] FCR 729, [1990] 3 All ER 12, [1990] Fam 133, [1989] 3 WLR 1239, [1990] 1 FLR 79, AppealBy appealing against an order of Judge Altman dated 18 March 2008, D in substance appealed against the judge’s judgment of 10 Janua......
-
D v Buckinghamshire County County
...of others (in this case other children) are also engaged. As long ago as 1990 in the case of R -v—HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL ex p AD [1990] 1FLR 79 Butler-Sloss LJ (as she then was) said this – “In balancing adequate protection for the child and fairness to an adult, the interests of an ......