Re G (Children: Contact)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2002 |
| Year | 2002 |
| Date | 2002 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Child – Adoption – Contact – Children suffering injuries – Judge satisfied one or other or both parents responsible for injuries – Judge giving local authority permission to end contact between children and father but not mother – Whether judge giving clear reasons for decision – Children Act 1989, s 34.
The local authority brought care proceedings in respect of five children of a family, as a result of physical injuries to the children which the judge found had been caused by one or both of the parents. Four of those children, two sets of twins (the twins), were children of the same father, and at the time of the hearing of the proceedings lived with foster parents. The fifth child, G, lived with her maternal grandparents. The judge refused an application by the authority to free the twins for adoption on the basis that the foster parents would be making their own application for adoption, which would be heard three weeks after the hearing of the instant appeal. He then turned to the question of contact between the twins and their parents. He ordered that there should be limited contact with the mother, as she would still have contact with G, and G would have contact with the twins. However, the father would have no contact with G and the judge found that his involvement would confuse the twins. He therefore gave the authority permission, under s 34 of the Children Act 1989, to terminate the contact the authority would otherwise have been obliged to facilitate between the twins in care and the father. The father appealed on the ground that the judge had failed to give clear reasons for coming to his decision.
Held – (1) Current research was in favour of some contact in adoption, one of the possible benefits being that of children simply knowing who the natural parents were. In the instant case the court was not persuaded that once contact was afforded to the mother, the children would be confused by the father’s involvement; indeed, they might be as, if not more, confused by his non-involvement. On the judge’s finding that it was uncertain who had caused the injuries, the father’s absence could not be explained on the grounds that he was the perpetrator of the injuries which had led to the children being placed in care, since it could not be excluded that the mother had been involved. The judge had not analysed why the minimal benefit of keeping the link with the natural parents alive did not operate as much for the father as for the mother. He did not look into the long term and analyse whether there was some benefit to the children in knowing that, despite the adoption, the father had kept in touch with them.
(2) The right time to consider what kind of contact natural parents would have to children being adopted was on the occasion when adoption was under consideration. In the instant case, the judge would look at the matter in the adoption context at the adoption hearing which was soon to take place and the local authority’s control would cease on the making of an adoption order. That being so, it was not appropriate to invite the judge to spell out precisely why he had reached the conclusions which he had with regard to the father’s contact. In the light of his decision to dismiss the local authority’s application to free the children for adoption and his invitation to the foster parents to make their own adoption application, the decision he had been asked to make by the local authority to terminate contact under s 34 was unnecessary and the order almost meaningless; English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 385 considered.
Accordingly, permission to appeal would be granted, the order which gave the local authority permission to terminate the father’s contact would be discharged and the appeal would be allowed.
Case referred to in judgmentEnglish v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd[2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 3 All ER 385.
AppealThe father applied for permission to appeal against the judgment of Judge Taylor, sitting at Middlesborough County Court on 11 January 2002, whereby he gave reasons for his decision to order the local authority to terminate the father’s contact with two sets of twins. The facts are set out in the judgment of Ward LJ.
Giles Pinkney for the father.
Guy Swiffen for the local authority.
WARD LJ.[1] This is an application by a father for permission to appeal against what is, at the moment, only the judgment of Judge Taylor, sitting in the Middlesborough County Court on 11 January 2002. The order affecting the father was not made until 1 March, on a subsequent hearing, when the learned judge ordered, without giving any further judgment, that permission be given to the local authority to terminate the contact the father was to have to two sets of twins. There is no point in being over-concerned about the technicalities. We therefore approach this matter on the basis that the order under appeal may technically be that made on 1 March...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re P (Children) (Adoption: Parental Consent)
...[2008] 2 FCR 229. F (a child) (placement order), Re[2008] EWCA Civ 439, [2008] 2 FCR 93. G (children: contact), Re[2002] EWCA Civ 761, [2002] 3 FCR 377, [2003] 1 FLR 270. Hasse v Germany[2005] 3 FCR 666, ECt HR. J v C [1969] 1 All ER 788, [1970] AC 668, [1969] 2 WLR 540, HL. Johansen v Norw......
-
Table of Cases
...Civ 965, [2014] 1 FLR 670, [2013] 3 FCR 293, [2013] Fam Law 1246 75 G (Adoption: Contact), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 761, [2003] 1 FLR 270, [2002] 3 FCR 377, [2003] Fam Law 9 100 G (Adoption: Leave to Oppose), Re [2014] EWCA Civ 432, [2015] Fam 223, [2014] 3 WLR 1719, [2014] 2 FCR 151 53 G (Adopti......