Re S (Minors) (Proceedings: Conflicting interests)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1994 |
| Date | 16 December 1994 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Division
Before Mr Justice Wall
Children - conflicting interests - one guardian ad litem adequate
The interests of a child who was the subject of an application to revoke a care order prevailed over the interests of her half-sister who, in the same proceedings, was the subject of an application to free for adoption.
It was unnecessary and a waste of valuable resources to appoint more than one guardian ad litem to represent children who were involved in the same proceedings and whose interests conflicted.
Mr Justice Wall so held in a reserved judgment in the Family Division allowing an application to revoke a care order in respect of T, a girl aged six, and making a residence order in favour of T's father. An application by the local authority to free T for adoption was dismissed but an application to free her half-sister, E, aged four, for adoption was allowed. The judgment was delivered in open court following a hearing and preliminary judgment in chambers.
Miss Alison Ball for T's father; Mr Alexander Verdan for the local authority; Mr Richard Scarratt for the mother; Mr Edward Woodcraft, solicitor, for the guardian ad litem.
MR JUSTICE WALL said that the case had thrown up a dilemma sadly familiar to the judges of the Family Division in which the best interests of two or more children conflicted.
If the paramount interests of each child produced incompatible and irreconcilable results, so that the result which was in the best interests of each child was impossible of achievement, whose interests were then paramount?
Where a number of children were all the subject of an application or cross-applications to the court in the same set of proceedings, and where it was impossible to achieve what was in the paramount interests of each child, the balancing exercise described in the Court of Appeal in In re H (Minors) (Parental contact)UNK ((1993) 1 FCR 904, 914) had to be undertaken and the situation of least detriment to all the children achieved.
However, since T was the only subject of the application for the revocation of the care order, was it her welfare alone which was paramount? The only other applications before the court were the applications to free the children for adoption.
In the application to free T for adoption, her welfare was the first, but not paramount consideration. Similar considerations applied, mutatis mutandis in the freeing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
...[1993] Fam 95, [1992] 4 All ER 649, [1992] 3 WLR 782, [1992] 2 FLR 458, CA. T and E (children’s proceedings: conflicting interests), Re[1995] 3 FCR 260, [1995] 1 FLR United States v Holmes (1842) 26 Fed Cas 360, Pa Cir Ct. Z (a minor) (freedom of publication), Re[1996] 2 FCR 164, [1997] Fam......
-
Re G (Children)
... ... Judge Copley was hearing proceedings brought under Part II of the Children Act 1989 by the mother of five ... Act, though it still appeared in section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, no doubt because by the late 1980s Parliament thought that it ... ', which in this context is synonymous with 'well-being' and 'interests' (see Lord Hailsham LC in In re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation) ... v H (No 2) [1993] 1 FLR 883 , Re T and E (Proceedings: Conflicting Interests) [1995] 1 FLR 581 , In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: ... ...
-
Re S (Adopted Child: Contact by Sibling)
...children: contact) [1996] Fam 34, [1996] 1 All ER 215, [1995] 3 WLR 793, CA. T and E (children’s proceedings: conflicting interests), Re[1995] 3 FCR 260. Application for leave to apply for a contact orderThe adopted half-sister applied for leave to bring proceedings for a contact order in r......
-
Re G, S and H (Care Proceedings: Wasted Costs)
...v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, [1994] 3 All ER 848, [1994] 3 WLR 462, CA. T and E (children’s proceedings: conflicting interests), Re[1995] 3 FCR 260. W (a minor) (abduction), Re[1996] 1 FCR ApplicationFollowing care proceedings in respect of three children in which two expert witnesses had no......