Re D and H (Minors) (Children in care: Termination of contact)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1997 |
| Date | 06 February 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Nourse and Mr Justice Cazalet
Children - care order - inconsistency with council's care plan
In the course of family proceedings it was wrong for a judge to make an order under section 34(2) or (5) of the Children Act 1989 phasing out contact between a mother and her children when such an order was inconsistent with the local authority's recommendations for the children set out in its care plan.
The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments granting the mother's application for leave to appeal and allowing her appeal from part of an order made by the judge that contact between her and her two young daughters, in respect of whom the judge had made care orders, be reduced in the discretion of the local authority and terminated on their placement.
Mr James Simpson for the mother; Mrs Roberta Holland for the local authority; Mr Jonathan P Swift for the guardian ad litem.
MR JUSTICE CAZALET said that the mother had three children, a son born in 1989 and two daughters born in 1991 and 1993 respectively. Each had a different father. The mother did not live with any of the the three fathers and none had a parental responsibility order.
In 1994, in circumstances raising serious concerns as to general neglect by the mother, an interim care order was made in respect of all three children. Thereafter the local authority had sought care orders in respect of the two girls and a supervision order in respect of the boy.
The mother, while not opposing the making of a care order, was resolute in her wish to continue to have contact to the two girls.
The local authority in its joint care plan for the girls was firmly of the view that placement in a long-term fostering family had to be its primary aim since that would enable there to be continuing contact between the girls, their mother and the extended family.
It was apparent from his judgment that the judge favoured adoption: having made the care orders, in paragraph 3 he directed that pursuant to section 34 of the 1989 Act contact between the two girls and their mother "be reduced in the discretion of the local authority and terminated on placement".
The guardian ad litem was firmly of the view that both girls had such a need for stability and security that the only proper course was to place them for adoption and phase out contact.
Thus before the judge there had been a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, ex parte Barry ; Same v Same
... ... section 2 is almost unique in the field of community care, the only other example of such a duty (so it was said) ... He has no contact with any of his family. But two friends call from time to ... were made by the Local Government Act 1972 and the Children Act 1989. The reference in section 2(1) of the Chronically ... ...