South Glamorgan County Council v W and B
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
DOUGLAS BROWN, J
Child – medical assessment – child of sufficient understanding to make informed decision – refusing assessment – whether High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction could make an order authorizing assessment.
Jurisdiction – High Court – competent child refusing necessary medical assessment – whether High Court retained its inherent jurisdiction to authorize assessment.
The parents had three children: two boys who were now adults and a girl who was born in 1977 and was now 15. The parents separated in 1982 and the custody of all three children was given to the father. From the time she was 11, in 1988, the girl had shown signs of disturbance and failed to attend school. She was seen by a psychiatrist and was admitted to an adolescent unit for a time in 1989 and again in 1990. Care proceedings were begun in May 1990 and a guardian ad litem appointed. Interim care orders were made and the child went to a children's centre. In June 1991 a juvenile court made a supervision order. The child continued to fail to attend school and spent most of her time in her home. From December 1991 her condition deteriorated badly. She did not leave the house and used the front room as her bedroom and living room. She began a regime of controlling the family. She dictated who should cook her meals and who could enter the front room. She became obsessive with cleanliness and verbally abusive. She would remain awake until 3 am to 5 am playing loud pop music and would insist that the father carried out her instructions until she fell asleep. She was seen by a child psychiatrist in February 1992. He found she was clearly beyond parental control. Nothing further was done at that stage to begin the process of removing the child from her room. In April 1992 another psychiatrist went to the home. The child would not let him into the room but he spoke to her. The doctor's view was that her situation was likely seriously to damage her health and limit her ability to function reasonably and he recommended that she receive treatment at a psychiatric unit for young people. In June another psychiatrist saw the child. His opinion was that she was not mentally ill but it was necessary to remove her from the home. Care proceedings were commenced and the same guardian ad litem appointed. The matter was transferred to the High Court. It was planned that the child should go to a family and adolescent unit. The Judge gave directions under s 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 that the child be assessed and, if necessary receive treatment, at the unit. The child refused to go. The local authority applied for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
and to give leave for the child to be removed, forcibly if necessary, from her home and taken to the unit and for the doctor in charge to administer such medication as was necessary. On behalf of the father it was submitted that, as s 38(6) of the 1989 Act gave a child who was of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision the right to refuse to submit to an assessment, the court could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to authorize an assessment.
Held – In the circumstances, the threshold criteria for making a care order were made out. The evidence did not enable the court to find that, in the terms of s 38(6) of the Children Act 1989, she was not a child "of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision" about a medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment. The High Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, could override in a proper case the wishes of a child and give consent for medical assessment. The Children Act 1989 had not abrogated that power and where other remedies within the Children Act had been used and exhausted and found not to bring about the desired result, the court could resort to other remedies. In the present case, the particular remedy was providing authority for the doctors to treat the child and, if it was needed, for the local authority to take all necessary steps to take the child to the doctors so she could be assessed and treated. The welfare of the child was the paramount consideration. It was clear that the child did not wish to go to the unit. But the overwhelming professional views were that the child must be admitted to the unit in her own interests. The court would therefore give the leave to the local authority that they sought.
Statutory provisions referred to:Children Act 1989, ss 38 and 100.
Family Law Reform Act 1969, s 8.
Cases referred to:Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112; [1985] 3 All ER 402.
W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court's Jurisdiction), Re[1992] 2 FCR 785; [1992] 3 WLR 758; [1992] 4 All ER 627.
Philip Jenkins for the local authority.
Mark Dyson (solicitor) for the father.
Pamela Mathews (solicitor) for the guardian ad litem.
The mother did not appear and was not represented.
MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN.The child, a girl, was born on 24 August 1977. She is, therefore, 15 years of age. On Thursday last, she became the subject of an interim care order under s 38 of the Children Act. At the same time, I made directions, under s 38(6) that she be assessed and, if necessary, treated at a family and adolescent unit in Taunton, the examination involved being a psychiatric examination and assessment and the period was to be up to eight weeks, as might be advised by the psychiatrist at that unit. The direction continued that the child remain at that unit during the assessment. In the event that she did not consent
to go to the unit, I gave leave to the local authority under s 100(3) of the Children Act 1989 to bring proceedings to invoke the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. I gave leave because I was satisfied that the result which the local authority wished to achieve could not be achieved through the making of any order to which s 100(5) applies and there was reasonable cause to believe that, if the court's inherent jurisdiction was not exercised with respect of a child, she was likely to suffer significant harm. Subsection (5) applies to any order made otherwise than in the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction and which, by subpara (b), the local authority is entitled to apply for.
The child did not consent. I have heard evidence from the social worker who was present with another social worker and indeed the guardian ad litem, that, although she was subject to entreaties and pleading and encouragement for over two hours, she refused to leave her room and accompany the social workers to the unit.
Accordingly, the matter is back before me today for the hearing of the application by the local authority for various orders under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, essentially that the court give its consent to the proposed treatment and assessment and leave for the child to be removed from her home for that purpose.
The child is represented in these proceedings, by a guardian ad litem Mrs Payne and by the solicitor instructed by the guardian Mrs Mathews. Her mother was present on Thursday but unrepresented and she made her case largely through the guardian ad litem with whom she made common cause. She has not been here today but her views have been made known to the guardian and repeated to me. Her father was present both on Thursday and today and is represented by his solicitor Mr Dyson.
The circumstances underlying both the application for the care order and the present application are unusual, not to say bizarre. I summarize the relevant history, which is largely not in dispute, and as I find it to be. The mother and father married in 1967. They separated in 1982 and were divorced in 1984. There were three children: a boy born in 1967, a boy born in 1968 and the child concerned. The father was given custody of all three children with reasonable access for the mother but the mother did not until recently see the child on any regular basis. Both boys have had considerable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- RE O and J (Paternity: Blood Tests)
-
Re O; Re J (Children) (Blood Tests: Constraint)
...SC (a minor) (adoption: freeing order), Re[1999] 1 FCR 145, [1999] Fam 240, [1999] 1 WLR 1079, [1999] 1 FLR 348. South Glamorgan CC v B[1993] 1 FCR 626, [1993] 1 FLR T (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment), Re[1997] 2 FCR 363, [1997] 1 All ER 906, [1997] 1 WLR 242, [1997] 1 FLR 502, CA. W......
-
Re C (Detention for Medical Treatment)
...Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1985] FLR 193. Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust v C[1997] 1 FCR 274. South Glamorgan County Council v B[1993] 1 FCR 626. Tameside and Glossop Acute Services Trust v CH[1996] 1 FCR 753. W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court's Jurisdiction), Re[1992] 2 FCR 785;......
-
A NHS Trust v X
...they have been consistently followed and applied by the judges down the years: see, for example, South Glamorgan County Council v W & B [1993] 1 FLR 574 (Douglas Brown J: 15-year-old refusing medical examination and assessment); Re C (Detention: Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 180 (Wall J: ......
-
Religious Beliefs and Teenage Refusal of Medical Treatment
...(Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1992] 1 FLR 190; Re W (A Minor: MedicalTreatment) [1993] 1 FLR 1; South Glamorgan County Council vW and B [1993] 1 FLR 574; Re K,Wand H (Minors) (Medical Treatment) [1993] 1 FLR 854; Re E (A Minor) (Wardship: MedicalTreatment) [1993] 1 FLR 386; Re S (A Minor) ......
-
Children's Rights
...it is possible that the High Court may overrule the refusal in the child’s best interests, see South Glamorgan County Council v W and B [1993]1 FLR 574. Such an event would be rare. 12.3 To make his or her own application to the court Under section 10(8) of the CA 1989, children of sufficie......
-
Adolescent Autonomy, Detention for Medical Treatment and Re C
...this conclusion, namely RvNorthampton, ex parte London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1995] FLR 193; SouthGlamorgan CC vW and B [1993] 1 FLR 574 and A Metropolitan Borough Council vDB [1997] 1 FLR767.The Modern Law Review [Vol. 62600 ßThe Modern Law Review Limited Should alternative sta......