Re D (A Minor) (Basis of Uncontested Care Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
| Year | 1995 |
| Court | Family Division |
THORPE, J
Child – care proceedings and other applications by local authority – criteria and need for order conceded by parents – local authority and guardian ad litem seeking further investigation on evidence to avoid complex potential future litigation in respect of an as yet unborn child – whether appropriate for court to grant declaratory judgment.
A local authority made applications in respect of a boy for a care order, an order terminating contact between him and his parents, and an order freeing him for adoption. The guardian ad litem supported each of these applications. The case was listed for a lengthy contested hearing, however negotiations by counsel resulted in a perception that contested hearing could be avoided, if the parents consented or withdrew their opposition to the making of the orders sought. The local authority expressed concern that if the case should be resolved in this way, there might be a need in the future to bring similar proceedings in relation to a further, as yet unborn child, as the parents might present a case on the basis that no definitive finding resulted from these proceedings. One of the essential elements of the case was the determination of responsibility for the death of the parents' first-born child, a girl.
The girl was treated for non-accidental injuries in November 1991. She was admitted to hospital with an extremely serious injury in October 1992, from which she would die five months later. In November 1992, the girl was the subject of an assault by her father who, in due course, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
A degree of uncertainty surrounded the injury from which the girl died, although it was likely that it involved a traumatic assault, with a viral infection being the alternative hypothesis. The parents formally admitted that in November 1991, the child suffered a non-accidental injury, and that the responsibility for that injury lay solely with them, if not as perpetrators, then as inadequate protectors.
The local authority prepared "Proposed Findings of Fact by the local authority and the Guardian ad Litem". These proposals were the concessions which were sought to be extracted from the hearing of the case concerning the boy, in order to ensure that, in any future litigation, the parents would not be able to reopen issues in relation to the parenting of the deceased child. The parents, on the other hand, produced their own "Proposed Findings of Fact", which involved consideration of and amendment to the local authority's first draft. Those who drafted the various proposals had been unable to resolve the differences between them.
Held – This situation, involving proposals of this kind from the local authority and the guardian ad litem, on the one hand, and the parents on the other, was unusual. Generally speaking, where judicial investigation on oral evidence was unnecessary, it was inappropriate for the court to make findings of fact. The admissions that were made on behalf of the parents were more than sufficient to satisfy the threshold criteria, and confirmed that the parents could not safely be entrusted with the care of a child. The court recognized the duty of the local authority to avoid the presentation of complex medical issues at some uncertain future date, but the court was required to concentrate on the purposes and scope of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re K (supervision orders)
...case conduct), Re[1998] 2 FCR 313. Croydon London BC v A and B[1992] 2 FCR 481. D (a minor) (basis of uncontested care order), Re[1995] 2 FCR 681. Devon CC v S[1992] 1 FCR 550, [1992] Fam 176, [1992] 3 All ER 793, [1992] 3 WLR 273. H and R (minors) (sexual abuse: standard of proof), Re[1996......
-
Re B (Threshold Criteria: Agreed Facts)
...for leave to appeal and the appeal would be allowed. Cases referred to in judgmentsD (a minor) (basis of uncontested care order), Re[1995] 2 FCR 681. Hackney London BC v G[1994] 2 FCR 216; sub nom Re G (a minor) (care order: threshold conditions) [1995] Fam 16, [1994] 3 WLR 1211. Applicatio......