Re M (A Minor) (Appeal: Interim Order) (No 1)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS,LORD JUSTICE MANN,LORD JUSTICE HIRST |
| Judgment Date | 04 August 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWCA Civ J0804-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 August 1993 |
[1993] EWCA Civ J0804-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr. Justice Ward)
Before: Lord Justice Butler-Sloss Lord Justice Mann and Lord Justice Hirst
MISS E. HINDLEY Q.C. (instructed by D.G. Carter, County Solicitor, Warwick, CV34 4RR) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR. HAYWOOD-SMITH (instructed by Messrs. Young & Lee of Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
MISS MACUR (instructed by Michael Purcell Parker & Co. of Birmingham B4 6QB) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
MR. D. HERSHAM (instructed by Messrs. Varley Hibbs & Co. of Coventry) appeared on behalf of the Guardian ad Litem
MR. A. DAVIDSON (instructed by Messrs. Rotherham & Co. of Coventry) appeared for the Intervenors
This is a renewed application from the order of Mr. Justice Ward on 26 July last, when he made an Interim Care Order under s. 40 of the Children Act 1989 until the end of this week. In doing so, he rightly expected the Court of Appeal to pick up the Interim Care Order and consider whether it should be continued.
The case arises in respect of a little girl of 4. It is only necessary to say that there have been extremely serious allegations made both against the mother and step-father. The mother is 25, and the step-father is 22. I may have got the ages slightly wrong, but effectively those are the ages. The most serious allegation relates to an injury to the stomach where the child was not taken to hospital in good time and very nearly died. That was the linchpin of the allegations made by the Local Authority, who have a duty to protect children in their area. This Local Authority takes that duty very seriously. If I may say, they were eminently justified in bringing this extremely difficult case to Court.
Mr. Justice Ward heard the case over some 25 days, and came to a conclusion on 22 July in a very long and extremely careful judgment in which he decided that the mother and the step-father, who is not the father of this child, were not sufficiently to blame for the many allegations which were made against them for it to be necessary for the child not to be returned to them. Effectively, they were exonerated from most of the allegations, although the threshold criteria were met under s. 31 in respect of two matters, one for the mother and the other for the step-father.
Mr. Justice Ward thought, and I share his view, that this is one of the most difficult cases to come before the Court. The Local Authority, supported by the guardian ad litem, appeal from the decision of the judge. It was because of that appeal that the judge made an order under s. 40. It is possible for this case, and indeed it is absolutely essential, that it should happen that this case should be heard as quickly as possible. The only Court available to hear this appeal with a Family Judge in it is on 16 and 17 September. It does not give a great deal of time for a case that took 25 days, and it is possibly too many weeks ahead, but it is the best that can be done. It is patent that it is urgent.
The duty of this Court today is to decide whether the judge's order of 23 July should be implemented or whether this Court should continue the Interim Care Order under s. 40 until the hearing of the appeal. The judge was aware that, whatever were the true facts and the facts which he found, the little girl had been undoubtedly traumatised by the experiences which she had received, and undoubtedly to some extent at least believes her mother and step-father to be at fault in various ways. She is currently living with a foster mother, and having contact with her mother and step-father during the week at a Family Centre and at the weekend in the home of the Milnes.
The judge had intended that pending a review of the case in October of this year the child should live with Mr. and Mrs. Milne with whom at this moment both the mother and the step-father, who is their son, are living. As a result of the Interim Care Order, of course, that part of Mr. Justice Ward's order has not been implemented. Mr. Hayward-Smith has sought to persuade us that the status quo should not be preserved pending the appeal. He made a powerful submission that this appeal was hopeless. He did not refer to G v G, but it was implicit in every word that he said. Miss Hindley, of course, recognizes that she has had a substantial hurdle to surmount in persuading the Court of Appeal that a careful and conscientious judgment from a High Court Judge in a very difficult family case, based to a very considerable extent, on his impression of the families and parties and witnesses should be overturned by the Court of Appeal.
It is however a very anxious test, and I, for myself, and I believe my brethren support me on this, are unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re B (Children) (Interim Care Order)
...authorities are cited, two of which are decisions of this court Re G (Minors) (Interim Care Order) [1993] 2 FLR 839 and Re M (a minor)(Appeal: interim order)(No 1) [1994] 1 FLR 54. 13 As Judge Cleary recognised (see paragraph 45 et seq. of his judgment) the question which the judge who take......
-
Re B (A Child) (Interim Care Order)
...Removal of Child), Re [2008] 1 FLR 575. L-A (children), Re[2009] EWCA Civ 822. M (A Minor) (Order Pending Appeal), Re[1994] 1 FCR 1, [1994] 1 FLR 54, M (children) (interim care order), Re[2005] EWCA Civ 1594, [2006] 1 FCR 303, [2006] 1 FLR 1043. AppealThe local authority and the guardian of......
- Re B (Care Proceedings: Interim Care Order)
-
B-T (A Child: Threshold Conditions)
...so, but Hollings J held that it could instead make an interim care order under s.38. 57 In Re M (A Minor) (Appeal: Interim Order) (No 1) [1994] 1 FLR 54 the trial judge (Ward J) found that the threshold criteria were met on a reduced basis and he did not make a care order. Faced with an app......