Re C (a Minor: Care order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1992 |
| Date | 30 July 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Divison
Before Mr Justice Ewbank
Children - conditional care order - legality
The making of a care order placed responsibility for decisions concerning a child with the local authority.
Justices had no power to add a direction that the guardian ad litem continue his involvement with the child.
Justices did have power under section 34 of the Children Act 1989 to make an order that there be no contact between the child and the mother, although such an order would not be appropriate in most circumstances.
Mr Justice Ewbank so held in the Family Divison allowing the local authority's appeal against an order by Margate and Ramsgate Family Proceedings Court on June 3, 1992 that the guardian ad litem be allowed to have continued involvement with the child C, in respect of whom a care order had just been made.
Mr Roger McCarthy for the local authority; Mr Martin O'Dwyer for the guardian ad litem; Mr Pierre Janusz for the mother.
MR JUSTICE EWBANK said that the first question was whether the justices had been right in thinking that they had power under section 34(2) of the 1989 Act to make an order that there be no contact between the child and the mother.
Mr McCarthy had argued that the most the court could do if it thought that contact should not take place was to make no order for contact, leaving it to the local authority and the parents to make any agreement.
His Lordship thought that it was open to the court to make an order for no contact if it thought that that was appropriate, although such an order would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); Re W
...discharge of its responsibilities. That was the intention of Parliament. 26 Consistently with this, in Kent County Council v C [1993] Fam 57 Ewbank J decided that the court has no power to add to a care order a direction to the authority that the child's guardian ad litem should be allowed ......
-
Re B (Children in Care: Contact)
...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 (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985] 2 A......
-
Hereford and Worcester County Council v S
...powers of the local authority but was carrying out the function required of the court by the statute. Re CN (A Minor) (Care Proceedings)[1992] 2 FCR 401 Statutory provisions referred to:Children Act 1989, ss 1, 20(5), 25 and 43. Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s 53. Children (Secure Ac......
-
Re KDT (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions)
...power to impose any conditions in a care order. Re B (Children in Care: Contact)[1993] 1 FCR 363 followed; Re CN (A Minor) (Care Order)[1992] 2 FCR 401 (2) In the Children Act 1989 there was tension between s 31, which left the administration of a care order to the local authority, and s 1(......