Re P (A Minor) (Inadequate Welfare Report)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1996 |
| Date | 1996 |
| Year | 1996 |
| Court | Family Division |
JOHNSON, J
Welfare report – applications for residence orders – need for court welfare officer to properly address relationships between children and parents in report – need for relationships to be assessed in neutral environment – effect upon court's decision where report fails to provide adequate information.
Residence order – cross-applications for residence orders in respect of three children – court welfare report directed – report failing to provide information regarding the relationships between children and parents – whether justices' decision vitiated by inability to properly evaluate those relationships.
The parents of three children, born on 23 March 1982, 16 December 1985 and 15 September 1987 respectively, had married in March 1989 and separated in March 1995, when the mother left the family home, taking the three children with her. After living in temporary accommodation, she obtained a three-bedroomed house in July 1995. In the meantime when the children visited the father on 14 April 1995, he retained them, although the eldest child (who was not in fact a child of the father) ran away and returned to live with his mother. At the time of the hearing before the justices, the eldest child was living with the mother, and the other two children with their father. The mother applied for residence orders in respect of all three children, as did the father. The justices did not have the benefit of any assessment of the relationships between each of the children and each of the parents. The report of the court welfare officer, although sought on 9 May 1995, did not become available until three-and-a-half months later. The court welfare officer's recommendation was for the children to remain together, and, as the eldest child was determined not to live with the father, the only practical option was for all three children to live with their mother. On 6 October 1995, the family proceedings court made a residence order for all three children to reside with the father. An order was also made providing for the children to have reasonable contact with their mother. The mother appealed.
Held – allowing the appeal: It was unfortunate that the inquiries made by the court welfare officer had been of the most limited kind. The court welfare officer had only seen the children on one occasion, in her office, together with the mother and the father. She created no opportunity for herself to assess the relationships between the children and either the mother or the father. The whole point of the court welfare officer system was that, because the court could not itself observe the relationships between the children and the parents, the court welfare officer acted as the eyes and ears of the court, and provided the court
with an independent and objective assessment of those relationships. The report prepared by the court welfare officer was inadequate by any standard. Her inquiry was conducted in such a way as to make it impossible for her to form any view about the relationships involved. This was a case where the manner in which the justices reached their conclusion about the parents and recorded their findings could not be challenged. They recorded their findings and reasons in exemplary fashion, clearly preferring the evidence given by and on behalf of the father. The justices addressed the issues raised in what is known as the "welfare check-list" and ultimately found that the father was undoubtedly the better parent. There was no reason to question the findings of the justices in this regard. Notwithstanding this, the appeal had to be allowed, not on the basis that the justices had been clearly wrong to reach the conclusion they did, but because, through no fault of their own, they were unable to take account of vital material and information regarding the relationships between the parents and the children. In view of the passage of time since May 1995, it was inappropriate for the court to seek to exercise its own discretion in the matter. The case would be transferred to the High Court, with a hearing to be fixed as a matter of urgency and a direction that a court welfare report be provided by the court welfare officer attached to the High Court.
Georgina Middleton for the appellant.
Richard Williams for the respondent.
MR JUSTICE JOHNSON.This is an appeal against orders made by justices sitting in the family proceedings court at Crawley on 6 October 1995. The proceedings related to three children, A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S (Children)
...adjournment and an order for a much fuller and more comprehensive welfare officer's report. He relied upon a decision of Johnson J Re P [1996] 2 FCR 285. The judge perfectly properly in my opinion distinguished that case, whilst recognising that in the generality of cases a report should be......