Re T (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HIRST |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWCA Civ J0621-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 21 June 1993 |
[1993] EWCA Civ J0621-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURTS
(His Honour Judge Kenny)
Before: Lord Justice Hirst and Mrs. Justice Bracewell
MR. SIMON CARR (instructed by Rowberry Morris of Reading, RG1 7SB) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MISS DIANE BARRETT (instructed by Garbett, County Solicitor, Shinfield Park, Reading) appeared on behalf of the 1st Respondent (Local Authority)
MR. DAVID TURNER (instructed by Griffiths Robertson of Reading) appeared on behalf of the 2nd Respondent (Guardian Ad Litem)
I will ask Mrs. Justice Bracewell to give the first judgment.
MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL: This is an appeal by the mother Cindy T., supported by her husband, the father, from an Order of His Honour Judge Kenny made on January 11 1993 at Reading County Court whereby he made a Care Order under the provisions of section 31 (1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 to Berkshire County Council in respect of a child Daniel Val T. who was born on July 6 1992.
The essence of the appeal is that the judge being satisfied that the threshold criteria were well founded under s.31(2)(a) and (b) of the Children Act should have made a Supervision Order for a period of one year under s.31(1)(b) and should not have made a Care Order to the local authority.
The chronology of the matter is that the father is now 25 years old and the mother is now 22 years old. The mother gave birth to her first child in 1986 when she was only some 15 years old. That child was called Mary-Jane. The parents subsequently married in 1987 and the next child, Robert, was born in June 1988. By October 1989 both Mary-Jane and Robert had been removed from the parents under a Place of Safety Order which was followed by an Order for Interim Care. The next child, Charlotte, was born in February 1990. Mary-Jane and Robert returned to the care of their parents under a three year Supervision Order in April 1990.
The children were made Wards of Court. By October 1990 Mary-Jane and Robert had been removed from their parents under an Interim Care Order and Charlotte was subject to an Interim Supervision Order. Luke was born in March 1991. He was made a Ward of Court and remained with his parents under an Interim Supervision Order.
In June 1991 in proceedings which were not contested by the parents, Mary-Jane and Robert were made the subject of a full Care Order and were placed with long term alternative families with a view to adoption. Luke and Charlotte were removed from their parents' care and then returned, but subsequently they were made the subject of full Care Orders. After a contested hearing in September 1991 the children were taken from the parents and placed with long term foster parents with a view to adoption.
Danielle, the subject of these proceedings, was born in July 1992. On 17 August 1992 she was the subject of an application by the local authority for either a Care or a Supervision Order. There was a full family assessment during the course of which Danielle was the subject of an Interim Supervision Order, she remaining with her parents throughout that assessment.
The hearing then took place on January 11 1993 when she was made the subject of a full Care Order under the Children Act. At those proceedings all the parties, that is the parents, the local authority, and the guardian ad litem representing the child agreed at the hearing before Judge Kenny that the threshold criteria were established as set out in s. 31(2)(a) and (b), in that the child was likely to suffer significant harm and that the likelihood of harm was attributable to the care likely to be given to her if the Order were not made, not what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her.
Those established criteria then gave rise to consideration of the Welfare Check List under s.1(3). It was common ground among the parties that the welfare of the child required an Order as opposed to no Order; and further that it was not appropriate to consider any s. 8 Order. It was agreed by all that the choice lay between a Care Order and a Supervision Order by reason of the serious history of parental failure in respect of the previous four children.
The parents had failed to provide even basic care for those four children. They had been subjected to massive neglect. The parents had demonstrated an incapacity to sustain any change. They had lived a chaotic lifestyle with a difficult relationship between the adults. They had been hostile to help from the local authority. They had rejected assessments. The father had spent some periods in prison.
The mother had failed to keep appointments, rejected counselling and failed to protect the children from members of the extended family who were potential sexual abusers and overall, the parents had failed to demonstrate any insight or understanding of the physical and emotional needs of the children.
Judge Kenny had dealt with all the previous proceedings, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re T (Care Order)
...that B be placed in the care of the Council. The law 27 As aptly described by Bracewell J in Re T (A minor): (Care or Supervision Order) [1994] 1 FLR 103 CA at 106H-107B: “The nature of a supervision order is to help and assist the child where the parents have full responsibility for the ca......
-
Re K (supervision orders)
...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 supervision order), Re[1996] 2 FCR 555, CA. Applic......
-
Re O (Minors) (Care or Supervision Order)
...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 663. David Jones for the Sally Cahill for the local authority. Amanda Ginsburg for the guardian ad litem. MRS JUSTICE HALE.This is an appeal ......
-
In the matter of J and S (Supervision Order or Care Order)
...required the more draconian step of a care order. (iv) Mr O’Hara drew my attention to Re: T (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order) [1994) 1 FLR 103 which was authority for the proposition that it was not wrong in law to make a care order where the local authority intended to leave the child ......