Re D (Care Proceedings: Appropriate Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1993 |
| Date | 1993 |
| Year | 1993 |
| Court | Family Division |
EWBANK, J
Care proceedings – local authority applying for supervision order – father responsible for death of baby 10 years earlier – father and mother now co-operating with local authority – local authority submit care order would undermine their relationship with parents – duty of court to provide protection for child – whether care order appropriate despite views of local authority.
The father and his wife had three children: a girl born in 1978, a boy born in 1981, and a boy born in 1983. In 1979 the girl suffered non-accidental injuries. In 1982 the girl suffered further injuries. It was alleged the father was responsible. An application for care orders was dismissed. When the youngest child was two months old he died. He had a fractured skull and 28 other fractures. The father was prosecuted. He was acquitted of murder but found guilty of cruelty and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Care orders were made in respect of the other two children and they went into long-term fostering.
In 1990 the father began cohabiting with another woman and in January 1992 they had a son. The local authority were concerned for the child's safety. At first the father lived away from home. In November a Judge made an interim supervision order by consent so the father could live with the mother and child. A guardian ad litem was appointed and, after investigating the circumstances, was of opinion that a care order should be made. Four consultant psychiatrists were involved. All expressed the opinion that because of the father's past treatment of his children, the child in question was at risk. They did not agree as to the degree of risk, the assessments ranging from a small risk to grave concern that the previous pattern of neglect and abuse by the father could restart. At the substantive hearing, the local authority sought a supervision order and submitted that a care order would undermine the co-operation they were receiving from the parents.
Held – The provisions of Sch 3 to the Children Act 1989 enabled a variety of directions to be given on a supervision order. These would allow the child's welfare to be monitored by regular medical examinations, attendance at a children's centre, directions as to where the child should live, and any other appropriate directions. If there was a breach of the
order, the supervisor had to consider whether to apply for a variation or discharge of the order. There was no direct way of enforcing the directions. A supervision order could only be made in the first instance for one year but could be extended for a further two years. If a care order were made, the local authority would have parental responsibility for the child and would have the power to limit the parental responsibility of the parents if they thought it necessary: s 33(3) of the 1989 Act. A care order was unlimited in time and could only be revoked by an application to the court: s 39. The Act made provision for a child in care to be placed with the parents: para 14 of Sch 2; and the Placement of Children with Parents Regulations 1991 required the local authority to satisfy themselves of the welfare of the child and to visit the child at prescribed intervals. The local authority's submission that a care order would undermine their relationship with the parents missed the point, which was to provide for the protection of the child. The father denied that he had ever caused an injury to any child but all the professionals involved approached the case on the basis that he had killed the baby. The court would approach the case on the same basis. His denial meant that his motivation could not be considered and if there was a trigger which caused his lack of control it could not be established. The child was thriving and loved by both parents but his protection was decisive in deciding whether there should be a supervision order or a care order. If there was to be lifting of the safeguards surrounding the child, this should be done by the court on consideration of the evidence. Therefore a care order would be made despite the views of the local authority.
Statutory provisions referred to:Children Act 1989, ss 3, 4, 31, 33(3), 35(1)(c) and 39; Sch 2 para 14; Sch 3 paras 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Placement of Children with Parents Regulations 1991, reg 9.
Jane Hoyal for the local authority.
Wendy Fawcett for the parents.
The Hon Ian Peddie for the guardian ad litem.
The maternal grandmother in person.
MR JUSTICE EWBANK.Nine years ago the father in this case was living with his wife and two children. One of those children was injured at the age of 4. The wife had a baby by the father in 1983 and when the baby was two months old the baby died. The father was thought to have killed the baby. The baby had a fractured skull and many other injuries. The other children were put into care and the father served a sentence of imprisonment for cruelty although he was acquitted of more serious charges.
Time moved on. The father went back to his wife when he came out of prison but then left and in due course he started living with another woman and they had a baby that was born in January...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re O (Minors) (Care or Supervision Order)
...1 KB 223; [1947] 2 All ER 680. B (Care or Supervision Order), Re[1997] 1 FCR 309. D (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Appropriate Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 88. F (A Minor) (Wardship: Appeal), Re [1976] Fam 238; [1986] 2 WLR 189; [1976] 1 All ER G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985......
-
Re B (Minors) (Care or Supervision Order)
...referred to:Children Act 1989, ss 1 and 22. Cases referred to in judgment:D (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Appropriate Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 88. S(J) (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR T (A Minor) (Care Order), Re[1994] 1 FCR 663. W (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Interim Ord......