Re S (J) (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 1993 |
| Court | Family Division |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CONINGSBY, QC SITTING AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE
Care proceedings – criteria for order met – whether court should make a supervision or care order.
The parents, who were not married to each other, had two children: a boy now aged 5½ and a boy now aged 2. The mother was expecting a third child to be born at the end of 1993. From early in his life the elder boy had suffered from non-accidental injuries. The father would have a loss of temper and outbursts of violence when handling him. The child and the parents were placed in an assessment centre in the summer of 1990. Soon after, the local authority decided that the elder boy was not safe with the parents and he was placed with foster parents. The younger boy was born in December 1990. In January 1991 the younger boy suffered non-accidental injury as a result of rough handling by the father. The local authority proposed that the elder boy be placed for adoption but at a hearing in Sepember 1991 the Judge disagreed and the elder boy was returned to the parents at the assessment centre. He suffered further non-accidental injuries and in June 1992 a care order was made in respect of the elder boy and he was placed with long-term foster parents with a view to adoption.
The parents had separated and the younger boy remained with the mother at the assessment centre. Early in 1993 the parents resumed cohabitation. As a result the local authority decided to apply for a care order. They devised a care plan. The younger boy was to remain with the mother but there were a number of provisions intended to safeguard the child. Just before the hearing, the local authority decided to apply for a supervision order rather than a care order. The Official Solicitor took a different view and was of opinion that the concerns were so great that for the protection of the child there should be a care order. It was common ground that the child should continue to live with the parents, and that the care plan was a good one and would operate in the same way whether there was a supervision order or a care order. It was not in dispute that the grounds required by s 31 of the Children Act 1989 to make either order were made out. The elder boy had suffered non-accidental injury on a number of occasions. The father had used inappropriate physical means to deal with the younger boy when he was challenging and that problem continued. The child did not thrive when the parents were together but did thrive when he was looked after by the mother on her own. The child had suffered significant harm in the past and there was a risk of significant harm happening in the future. The issue
before the court was whether there should be a supervision order or a care order.
Held – This was a case of a reasonably competent mother who on her own would be safe but when the father was in the home it was not a safe home. There was a great risk of further violence occurring and the court needed to look for the best protection that was available through the orders which could be made. The essential question was whether the child would be adequately safeguarded if a supervision order was made and the mother was the sole person with parental responsibility. If a care order was made it was provided by s 33 of the Children Act 1989 that the local authority should have parental responsibility and would have power to determine the extent to which the parent might meet his parental responsibility for the child. Also, it was provided by s 22(3) of the 1989 Act that it was the duty of the local authority to safeguard the welfare of a child in their care. Where, as in the present case, it was proposed that the child should be placed with the parent, the Placement of Children with Parents etc Regulations 1991 applied. By reg 4 the local authority was required to be satisfied that the placement was the most suitable way of performing their duty under s 22(3). By reg 9(1) the local authority must satisfy themselves that the child's welfare continued to be appropriately provided for by the placement and for that purpose were required (a) to give such advice and assistance to the person with whom the child was placed as appeared to be necessary and (b) to arrange for regular visits by an authorized person who was to prepare a written report after each visit. By reg 11(1) the local authority were under a duty to remove the child if it appeared that the placement was no longer in accordance with their duty under s 22(3) of the Act. By contrast, when a supervision order was made, s 35(1) of the Act required the supervisor to advise and assist the child but there was no requirement to advise the parents. Further, although s 35(1) of the Act required the supervisor to take steps to give effect to the order that was not spelt out. There was no obligation to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. That obligation did not pass to the local authority; it remained with the mother who was the only person with parental responsibility. Further, if it became necessary to remove the child, the local authority would have to apply for an emergency protection order and it might be difficult to amass the evidence necessary to show the need for such an order. But if a care order were made, the local authority had the power and the duty to remove the child by virtue of reg 11(1) of the 1991 Regulations. In the present case, the circumstances were such that the local authority might have to act swiftly to protect the child. This was a case where, having regard to the risk of harm to the child and the gravity of the case as a whole, the local authority ought to have imposed upon them the extra duties involved in a care order.
Statutory provisions referred to:Children Act 1989, ss 22, 31, 33, 35 and 102 and Sch 3.
Placement of Children with Parents etc Regulations 1991, regs 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11 and Sch 2.
Cases referred to in judgment:Croydon London Borough v A and B[1992] 2 FCR 481.
Richard Clough for the local authority.
Anne Jessop for the mother.
Nigel Murray for the father.
Jonathan Cohen for the children and Official Solicitor.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CONINGSBY, QC.This case concerns a child who was born on 31 December 1990; he is 2¼. He has an older brother who was born on 3 November 1988 and is 5½ and is no longer living with his parents.
The parties to the proceedings before me are the London Borough of Croydon, the mother who is aged 22 and the father who is aged 29/nearly 30 and also the Official Solicitor as guardian ad litem for the younger boy.
The elder boy suffered a non-accidental injury early on in his life and the local authority became involved. There were some care proceedings in the summer of 1990 and a care order was made with regard to the elder boy. He was then placed with his parents in a residential placement at a family centre. The problem was that the father would have a loss of temper when handling the elder boy and the local authority decided at that stage that the boy was not safe with the parents and he was removed to foster parents, with a view to later placement for adoption. The parents applied for access in the juvenile court and when the younger boy was born in December of 1990 the parents made him a ward of court in order to pre-empt the care proceedings which were to be taken by the local authority. The local authority issued wardship proceedings in relation to the elder boy, so that both children would be dealt with within wardship proceedings and the two proceedings were joined and dealt with in the Croydon district registry.
In January of 1991 there was another incident of bruising, probably caused by the child being grabbed by the father, this related to the younger boy, and the local authority applied for the removal of the younger boy to short-term foster parents. He was away from his parents for some two and a half months. The parents were then placed at a centre in Norwood for assessment and therapy. They moved in there in April of 1991 and the younger boy was placed with them. The parents coped all right with the younger boy. There were one or two occasions of minor injuries which were thought to be accidental. The local authority's plan for the elder boy was that he should go for adoption. That was modified in 1991 because the maternal grandmother and her husband offered to make a home for the elder boy and they were assessed. They were approved but eventually decided not to proceed with that.
The matter came before Judge Willis at Croydon on 30 Sepember 1991 and he took a different view of the matter from that presented by both the Official Solicitor and the local authority and decided that the parents should be given an opportunity with the elder boy and that he should join them in a residential placement. Dr Conn had been brought into the case and had made a report with regard to the elder boy. He was concerned about the father's problems (the tempestuous outbursts and a tendency to violence with the elder boy) and thought that they were likely to be long-term. Initially he did not recommend the resumption of access but he did alter his view. The result of that was that the elder boy was placed with the parents at the centre and help was being given to support
the parents with both of the children. Unfortunately, the parents had difficulty with the elder boy. He was a challenging child. There were some occasions of injuries which had to be investigated and in April of 1992 there was a serious incident which led to the parents separating. The child had a number of marks and injuries on his head and neck and the mother obviously felt that they had been caused by the father and separated from him and they lived in different parts of the establishment for a little time after that. The elder boy was removed to foster parents. The mother continued to look after the younger boy.
In June of 1992 there was a care order with regard to the elder with a view to his being placed with long-term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re T (Care Order)
...Direction (residence and contact orders: domestic violence and harm) [2008] 2 FCR 273. S (J) (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 193, [1993] 2 FLR T (a child) (supervision order: duration), Re[2008] EWCA Civ 199, [2008] 3 FCR 319, sub nom Wakefield Metropolitan District Co......
-
Re K (supervision orders)
...(care or supervision order), Re[1997] 2 FCR 17. Oxfordshire CC v L and F[1997] 3 FCR 124. S (J) (a minor) (care or supervision order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 193. T (a minor) (care order), Re[1994] 1 FCR 663, T (accommodation of child by local authority), Re[1995] 1 FCR 517. V (a minor) (care or su......
-
Re O (Minors) (Care or Supervision Order)
...M (A Minor (Contact), Re[1995] 2 FCR 435. M v Westminster City Council [1985] FLR 325. S(J) (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 193. T (A Minor) (Care order), Re[1994] 1 FCR David Jones for the parents. Sally Cahill for the local authority. Amanda Ginsburg for the guardian......
-
Re B (Minors) (Care or Supervision Order)
...to in judgment:D (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Appropriate Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 88. S(J) (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order), Re[1993] 2 FCR 193. T (A Minor) (Care Order), Re[1994] 1 FCR W (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Interim Order), Re[1994] 3 FCR 102. Yvonne Healing for the local autho......