Re S (Minor) (Care order: Split hearing)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 August 1996 |
| Date | 29 August 1996 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Division
Before Mrs Justice Bracewell
Practice - cases involving children - identifying circumstances suitable for a split hearing
Courts and practitioners needed to be alert to identify those cases which were suited to a split hearing; in general cases in which there was a clear issue such as sexual or physical abuse. Local authorities and guardians ad litem could and should assist the court to identify such cases in order to prevent delay and the ill-focused use of scarce expert resources.
In contested cases, experts in the same field of expertise should be required to meet in advance of the hearing to identify areas of agreement and dispute, which should then be incorporated into a schedule for the court.
Mrs Justice Bracewell so held in the Family Division in open court, following a judgment given in chambers. Her Ladyship indicated that no information should be disclosed which might reveal the identity of the parties or the locality of the case.
MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL said that the Children Act Advisory Committee's Annual Report 1994-1995 (Lord Chancellor's Department, family policy division) stated (at p19) that consideration should be given to whether questions of fact in a particular case, such as an allegation of physical or sexual abuse, might need to be deter mined at a preliminary stage and in such a case the early resolution of those issues would then enable the substantive hearing to proceed more speedily and to focus on the child's welfare with greater clarity.
The present case was an example of such a case.
The application for a care order for S was dated April 10, 1995 and arose out of S's presentation at hospital on March 30, 1995, when aged 10 months, with life-threatening injuries.
The full hearing in the High Court commenced on June 18, 1996, that is, some 14 months after issue of the application. Even then the local authority was unable to present a definitive care plan, nor could the guardian ad litem recommend any particular outcome, because the stark factual issues required determination before any future placement could be considered.
Various assessments of the parenting capacity of the mother, father and step-father had been carried out, involving highly qualified experts at considerable expense of resources and time, but none could make firm recommendations.
The issues were clear from an early stage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cambridgeshire County Council v PS and Others
...[2001] 3 FCR 702, [2001] 2 FLR 776. R v Lucas [1981] 2 All ER 1008, [1981] QB 720, [1981] 3 WLR 120. S (Care Order: Split Hearing), Re[1996] 3 FCR 578n, [1996] 2 FLR SW v Portsmouth City Council, Re W (children) (concurrent care and criminal proceedings)[2009] EWCA Civ 644, [2009] 3 FCR 1, ......
-
NH v A County Council and Others; Re D (children) (non-accidental injury)
...UKHL 18, [2003] 1 FCR 673, [2003] 2 All ER 305, [2004] 1 AC 523, [2003] 2 WLR 1075, [2003] 1 FLR 1169. S (care order: split hearing), Re[1996] 3 FCR 578, [1996] 2 FLR AppealThe father of two children, R and S, who were born in 2005 and 2008 respectively, appealed against findings of fact, m......
-
Re Cb and Jb (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Case Conduct)
...abuse: expert evidence) [1996] 4 All ER 239, CA. M v M (allocation of judge) [1993] 1 FCR 781, CA. S (care order: split hearing), Re[1996] 3 FCR 578. ApplicationCare proceedings were brought as a result of a child suffering non-accidental injuries at the hands of a parent. At the hearing Wa......
-
Re Y and Another (Children) (Care Proceedings: Split Hearing)
...All ER (D) 465 (Jul). M (disclosure: police investigation), Re[2002] 1 FCR 655, [2001] 2 FLR 1316. S (care order: split hearing), Re[1996] 3 FCR 578, [1996] 2 FLR Saunders v UK (1997) 2 BHRC 358, ECt HR. AppealThe local authority and guardian ad litem appealed against the decision of Judge ......