Southwark London Borough Council v B
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1998 |
| Date | 14 July 1998 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Division
Before Mr Justice Charles
Children - care order - date for assessing threshold criteria
The relevant date for the assessment of both the first and second limbs of the threshold criteria in care cases under section 31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 was at the date of the care order application or if temporary arrangements had been continuously in force from an earlier date, the date when those arrangements were initiated.
Mr Justice Charles so held in a reserved judgment in the Family Division when granting the local authority's application for a care order in respect of the mother's two children, a girl aged 14 and a boy aged three, who had been placed with local authority foster carers on June 6, 1998.
There was disagreement between the parties as to the date at which the criteria contained in the second limb of section 31(2)(a) of the Act had to be satisfied.
Counsel for the mother argued that the relevant date for considering whether the children were likely to suffer significant harm was not the date of the local authority's application, but at the date of the hearing, by which time the mother's mental health had improved and, so it was argued, the children were no longer likely to suffer any harm.
Miss Jane Rayson for the mother; Miss Gillian Marks for the girl; Miss Kharin Cox for the boy; Mr David Turner for the local authority.
MR JUSTICE CHARLES said it was common ground that the first limb to section 31(2)(a) "the child concerned is suffering" predicated an existing state of affairs that the child was suffering significant harm.
It was on that basis that the House of Lords in In re M (Minor) (Care order: Threshold condition)ELR ((1994) 2 AC 424) had held that the relevant time for the purpose of the first limb was the date of the care order application.
Otherwise the courts would find themselves in the position of not being able to grant a care order when children had been placed with foster carers, as they would no longer have been suffering harm at the date of the hearing.
Miss Rayson argued that there was no authority directly on the question as to the assessment date under the second limb of section 31(2)(a) as In re Monly applied to the first limb of section 31(2)(a); so consideration as to whether the children were likely to suffer harm in the future had to be decided as at the date of the hearing.
His Lordship held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scc v B
...1 WLR 968, CA. Science Research Council v Nassé [1980] AC 1028, [1979] 3 All ER 673, [1979] 3 WLR 762, HL. Southwark London BC v B [1999] 1 FCR 550, [1998] 2 FLR 1095. Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 3 All ER 472, [1991] 1 WLR 607, CA. Vernon v Bosley (No 2) [1999] QB 18, [1997] 1 All ER 614, [......
-
Bcc v L
...which it falls to be established are shown by, for example, the following: Re M [1994] 2 AC and [1994] 2 FLR 577; Southwark LBC v B [1998] 2 FLR 1095; and Lancashire CC v. B [2001] FLR 583 (and see also that case in the Court of Appeal where, at [1999] 2 FLR 834, Robert Walker L.J. cites fr......
-
Department of Children and Family Services v DE and NE
...1 W.L.R. 211; [2001] 1 All E.R. 362; [2001] 1 FLR 308; [2001] Fam. Law 21, referred to. (11) Southwark London Borough Council v. B, [1998] 2 FLR 1095; [1999] 1 F.C.R. 550; [1998] Fam. Law 657, referred to. (12) WH (A Minor: Care Proceedings), In re, Grand Ct., May 7th, 2014, unreported, Cau......
-
Re R (Care: Disclosure: Nature of Proceedings)
...which it falls to be established are shown by, for example, the following: Re M [1994] 2 AC and [1994] 2 FLR 577; Southwark LBC v. B [1998] 2 FLR 1095; and Lancashire CC v. B [2001] FLR 583 (and see also that case in the Court of Appeal where, at [1999] 2 FLR 834, Robert Walker L.J. cites f......