Re K (Contact: Psychiatric Report)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,LORD JUSTICE WARD,LORD JUSTICE HENRY |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Civ J0406-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | CCFM1 95\0029\F |
| Date | 06 April 1995 |
[1995] EWCA Civ J0406-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BROMLEY COUNTY COURT
His Honour Judge Coningsby QC
Before Lord Justice Russell Lord Justice Henry Lord Justice Ward
CCFM1 95\0029\F
In the Matter of
MISS J PLANGE (Instructed by David Atkinson, Borough Secretary & Solicitor, SE18) appeared on behalf of the Local Authority Appellant).
MR M EMANUEL (Instructed by Dilworth & Co. SE18 7BZ) appeared on behalf of the mother.
MR D CLARK (Instructed by Compton Partnership, SE18 6LL) appeared on behalf of the father.
I will ask Lord Justice Ward to give the first judgment.
It is my unhappy experience, borne out by other anecdotal evidence and confirmed by the Official Solicitor's Department that there seems to be an increasing number of cases coming before the family courts where contact between a young child and the absent parent has become bedeviled by stubborn opposition to that contact being shown by the child which may, or may not, be evidence of some implacable hostility on the part of the other parent for good reason or for no reason at all. His Honour Judge Coningsby, in this case, was confronting such a problem. Details of the case do not need elaboration because it is still pending before the court.
In the briefest summary the circumstances are that the young girl concerned is now 8 years of age. Her parents' marriage was tempestuous and there are allegations and counter allegations of excessive drink, and of violence, levelled one against the other. Neither seems able to say a good word for the other. It is hardly a surprise therefore that this young girl is showing signs of some emotional disturbance which has reflected itself in her failure to perform properly at school. That has involved the attention of an educational psychologist and the child is receiving some therapeutic treatment from him which will doubtless continue.
The divorce proceedings have ground on slowly, with applications being made by the father for contact to her. Her Honour Judge Hallon ordered such contact in February 1994 directing that the father, who had not seen this little girl for some time, should write to her for a period of some three months and then have contact with her fortnightly. Four such occasions took place but they broke down and the mother has applied to discharge that order.
When the matter came before His Honour Judge Coningsby in October 1994, he was rightly concerned about the state of affairs. He took a keen note of the recommendations of the educational psychologist to the effect that this was a case where the child herself probably needed some help from a fully qualified child psychiatrist. He was firmly of the view that such evidence would greatly assist him in determining whether or not it would be in the best interest of the child to make further attempts, and if so what further attempts, to restore the relationship between father and daughter. Not surprisingly, he wondered also whether that professional help might assist both the parents to come to terms with the difficulties which confronted their daughter, and their responsibility for those difficulties.
His dilemma was how to achieve the intervention of an independent child psychiatrist. It is not at all clear to me why, given a willingness apparently expressed to him by both parties, the matter could not have been dealt with by the parents jointly instructing such psychiatrist as might have been agreed between them. They had, after all, with the good help of their solicitors, made a joint approach to the educational psychologist. That course was not followed for they may not have seemed to the judge to be as cooperative as they appear to be today. The learned judge was forced to make a complicated order. Firstly, he directed that the local authority appoint an officer to report to the court on the issues raised in the father's application for contact; secondly, that such officer do obtain a report from a child psychiatrist experienced in work under the Children Act; thirdly, that the report of the officer, including the psychiatrist's report, be completed and lodged at court in time for a hearing which he fixed to take place some time hence.
The case was then listed for further directions in December and the learned judge requested that an officer of the local authority attend that hearing for directions. The local authority duly appeared by counsel on 13 December and challenged the court's jurisdiction to make the order which I have recited, submitting that there was no power to direct them to undertake the task, and no doubt pay for the task, of instructing an independent psychiatrist. Their objections did not prevail and the learned judge considered that he was empowered by section 7 of the Children Act 1989 to make the order which he did. Section 7 reads to this effect:
"Welfare reports —(1) A court considering any question with respect to a child under this Act may -
(a) ask a probation officer; or
(b) ask a local authority to arrange for -
(i) an officer of the authority; or
(ii) such other person (other than a probation officer) as the authority considers appropriate,
to report to the court (a) on such matters relating to the welfare of that child as are required to be dealt with in the report."
Subsection (2) empowers the Lord Chancellor to make the regulations but he has not exercised that power. Subsection (5) provides:
"It shall be the duty of the authority or probation officer to comply with any request for a report under this section."
In this case the court had been assisted by two previous welfare officers' reports conducted by two different members of the local civil court welfare service. That would not have prevented the learned judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re C(children)
...Syndrome which the court welfare officer is not qualified to judge. He relies upon the case of Re K (Contact: Psychiatrist Report) [1995] 2 FLR 432, a decision of this court to the effect that there is jurisdiction for the court to appoint its own expert. 2 He first made an application to t......