Re G (A Minor) (Care Order: Threshold Conditions)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Family Division |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1993 |
| Date | 16 June 1993 |
| Year | 1994 |
Children - Care proceedings - Threshold conditions - Local authority seeking care order - All parties agreeing order should be made - Dispute as to factual basis for order - Extent of court's investigative duty - Whether detailed findings of fact appropriate -
A local authority applied for a care order in respect of an eight-year-old boy. All parties to the application agreed that the order should be made but there was disagreement as to the factual grounds on which the order should be based. The father, who had been caring for the boy, argued that, if the court was satisfied, on the basis of the facts which he conceded, that the threshold conditions under section 31 of the Children Act 1989F1 were met and that it was in the boy's interests for the care order to be made, it was unnecessary to investigate the matter further. The local authority wanted the court to make specific findings of fact as to the father's physical abuse and neglect of the boy, his exposure of the boy to adult sexual activity and his close association with men involved in serious offences against children. In support of its case the local authority proposed to produce in evidence statements made by the father to the police which had resulted in criminal charges against him. The father objected to such a course on the grounds that, at his trial, the statements had been ruled to be unreliable under section 76(2) of the
On a preliminary issue as to whether the court should make the specific findings of fact sought by the local authority and admit in evidence the statements made by the father to the police which had been ruled to be unreliable: —
Held, that on an application for a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 the court had to be satisfied by evidence that the significant harm suffered by the child was attributable to the care, or absence of care, given to the child by the parent against whom the order was sought, and no agreement between the parties could deprive the court of that duty to be so satisfied; that where there was a disagreement as to the factual grounds for the making of a care order it was not an appropriate exercise of the court's power to take the lowest common denominator as the basis for an order; that, therefore, the local authority could present evidence material to the proper exercise of the court's powers and upon which the local authority sought findings of fact, although the court should limit its investigation to evidence which was directly relevant to the issue of significant harm and findings necessary for the proper disposal of the case; that an investigation of the criminal allegations against the father was unnecessary for the proper determination of the care proceedings and would extend the length and cost of the hearing; and that, accordingly, the local authority would not, in the exercise of the court's discretion, be permitted to produce in evidence statements made by the father in the criminal proceedings (post, pp. 1215F, G, 1217A–B, D, F–G, 1218C, D–E).
Per curiam. (i) When a responsible local authority, supported by the guardian ad litem, asks the court to make findings designed to assist it with the management of its care plan, the court should be very slow to exercise its power over its own procedure to preclude the local authority from presenting whatever evidence it perceives is relevant for the proving of the threshold criteria and the implementation of the care plan (post, p. 1215H).
(ii) In care proceedings the strict evidential rules appertaining under the
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2) [
Devon County Council v. S. [
Grenfell v. Grenfell [
H. v. H. (A Minor) (Child Abuse: Evidence) [
Reg. v. Newton (
No additional cases were cited in argument.
APPLICATION
The local authority, Hackney London Borough Council, applied for a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in respect of an eight-year-old boy. The boy's parents and the guardian ad litem agreed that the order should be made, but there was disagreement as to the factual basis for the order. The father argued that the order should be made on the basis of the minimum facts which he was prepared to concede whilst the local authority wanted the court to make detailed findings of fact. The father objected to the local authority producing in evidence statements he had made to police which had subsequently been ruled unreliable under section 76 of the
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Anne Bradwell for the local authority.
Augustus Ullstein Q.C. and Ann Hussey for the father.
Susannah Walker for the mother.
Richard Anelay Q.C. for the guardian ad litem.
WALL J. I have before me an application by Hackney London Borough Council for a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 relating to a child whom I will call “L.” L. was born on 2 November 1984, and so is now eight years old. The other parties to the proceedings are L.'s father and mother. L. himself is represented in these proceedings by his guardian ad litem.
I am giving this judgment without the case having been fully opened to me, without having heard any evidence and having read only a small portion of the papers. I do so because a preliminary point has been raised by Mr. Ullstein, on behalf of the father. For the purposes of this judgment, therefore, I recite only the following facts. (1) It is accepted by the father that L. is a psychologically disturbed child. (2) It is further accepted by the father that he does not have a settled home or relationship with another woman and, therefore, cannot provide the care which is necessary to enable L. to develop normally. (3) The father further accepts that L. suffers from a significant impairment in social functioning and is psychologically vulnerable. (4) He further accepts that as a consequence, were L. to return to his care, L. would be likely to suffer significant harm. The father accepts, accordingly, that a care order should be made.
The local authority puts its case for a care order on a different basis. It seeks the following findings of fact: (1) that the father has physically abused L.; (2) that the father neglected him by not sending him to school and by leaving him with his grandmother, who was herself unfit to care for him; (3) that the father exposed L. to adult sexual activity and encouraged him to participate; (4) that the father was closely associated with other men who were involved in the kidnapping, drugging, sexual abuse and deaths of at least three children, which resulted in life sentences being imposed on one of the men and long sentences of imprisonment on the others; (5) that he was a participant in the sexual activities with one of the boys referred to on the night the boy was killed and, indeed, was present when the boy was killed; (6) that he was aware of the identity of those responsible for at least one of the deaths and did nothing to dissociate himself from those persons.
The latter two findings could only be made if I were to admit into evidence statements made by the father to police officers, which formed the basis of charges made against the father of conspiracy to bugger and indecent...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v VW and Others
- Southwark London Borough Council v B
- Re SH (Care Order: Orphan)
-
Lancashire County Council v B
...11The judge then applied to the facts of this case an observation of Wall J. in In re G (A Minor)(Care Order: Threshold Conditions) [1995] Fam. 16, 20: 'The inescapable construction of section 31, in my judgment, is that the court has to be satisfied by evidence that the significant harm s......