A v Liverpool City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1981 |
| Year | 1981 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Children and Young Person - Care of - Child received into care by local authority - Local authority restricting mother's access to child - Mother commencing wardship proceedings seeking order for defined access and care and control - Jurisdiction of High Court -
A local authority obtained a care order in respect of a child pursuant to section 1 (2) (a) and (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The child was placed with foster parents, and the mother was allowed weekly access. Subsequently, the local authority told the mother that in future only monthly supervised access would be allowed, to take place at a day nursery and limited to one hour, giving as their reason that “rehabilitation” of the mother and the child (i.e., restoration to his mother's care) was not in the child's best interest and that therefore there was no point in maintaining regular access. The mother was dissatisfied with that (decision and commenced wardship proceedings, by her summons seeking an order for defined access to the child and care and control of him. Balcombe J., following two decisions of the Court of Appeal, held that he had no jurisdiction to continue the wardship when the car order was in force, and he accordingly discharged the wardship.
On appeal by the mother direct to the House of Lords:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that Parliament had by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 entrusted to the local authority the power and the duty to make decisions as to the welfare of the children in its care, and there was no suggestion in the legislation that the High Court was to be left with a reviewing power as to the merits of its decisions; that the general inherent power of the court in its wardship jurisdiction was available to fill gaps or supplement the powers of the local authority but not to supervise the exercise of discretion within the field committed by statute to the local authority; and that, accordingly, Balcombe J. had rightly discharged the wardship (post, pp. 952G–953A, E, H–954B, 957C–F, 959E–F).
The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:
A. B. (An Infant), In re [
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [
Attorney-General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd. [
B.(A Minor) (Wardship: Child in Care), In re [
D. (A Minor) (Justices' Decision: Review), In re [
H. (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction), In re [
J. v. C. [
M. (An Infant), In re [
T. (A. J. J.) (An Infant), In re [
W. (Minors) (Wardship: Jurisdiction), In re [
Ward v. Laverty [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Bombay Province v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [
C. (Minors) (Wardship: Jurisdiction), In re [
C. B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Local Authority), In re [
L. (Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction), In re [
Lewisham London Borough Council v. Lewisham Juvenile Court Justices [
M. v. Humberside County Council [
Y. (A Minor) (Child in Care: Access), In re [
APPEAL from Balcombe J. at Liverpool District Registry.
This was an appeal by the mother, A., of an infant, K., from an order made by Balcombe J. on October 14, 1980, discharging the wardship relating to the infant commenced by her by way of originating summons pursuant to section 9 of the
In his judgment, Balcombe J. held that the case was completely covered by the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re W. (Minors) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [
Balcombe J. certified pursuant to section 12 of the
The mother appealed.
The facts are set out in the opinions of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Roskill.
Michael Morland Q.C. and Judith Daley for the mother.
John Hugill Q.C. and Mark Hedley for the local authority.
Their Lordships took time for consideration.
May 20. LORD WILBERFORCE. My Lords, this appeal comes to this House in accordance with section 12 of the
The learned judge decided as he did following two decisions of the Court of Appeal, namely, In re M. (An Infant) [
At the present time, responsibility for jurisdiction over minors is divided between a large number of courts and authorities and is regulated by a number of Acts of Parliament as well as by principles of equity and law. There are many different strands which it is difficult to disentangle, and any statement of principle is liable to be complicated or confused by exceptions and qualifications. I do not therefore attempt to survey the whole field. The principles which govern the present case, however, are comparatively simple to state.
The welfare of the child has always been the yardstick by which courts of equity, exercising their ancient jurisdiction over minors (or infants as they were historically described), were guided. But naturally the considerations by which they were guided in reaching their decisions as to a child's welfare, or his best interests, have varied. This was particularly so in relation to the claims of parents. I need not repeat in this context the very full historical analysis present by the speeches in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- RE O and J (Paternity: Blood Tests)
-
Re S (A Minor) (Independent Representation)
...Proceedings Rules 1991, rr 4.10 to 4.12, 4.14, 9.2, 9.2A and 9.5 RSC Ord 80 r 2. Cases referred to in judgment:A v Liverpool City Council [1982] AC 363; [1981] 2 WLR 363; [1981] 2 All ER 385. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112; [1985] 3 WLR 830; [1985] 3 ......
- Re B (Minors) (Care: Contact: Local Authority's Plans)
-
Re D (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction)
...court retains jurisdiction to intervene in appropriate cases, that it does was made clear by the speeches in the House of Lords in A v. Liverpool City Council [1982] A.C. 363 and W (A minor) (Wardship Jurisdiction) [1985] A.C. 791. Neither of these cases was dealing with the possible confli......
-
The Role of the Family Court of Australia in Child Welfare Matters
...natural parent, its discretionary decisions.Inmy opinionParliament has marked out an area in which, subject to the enacted limitations131[1982]AC363, 372. Lords Diplock, Fraser and Keith agreed with the judgmentofLordWilberforce.132Ibid3n.133 Supra 34Federal Law Review [VOLUME21and safeguar......
-
Adolescent Autonomy, Detention for Medical Treatment and Re C
...by Parliament to someother court or body: see eg Re Mohamed Arif (An Infant); Re Nirbal Singh (An Infant) [1968] Ch 643;AvLiverpool CC [1982] AC 363.30 per Wall J, n 2 above, 189.31 eg under s 17(10), defining children ‘in need’; ss 20; 22(1): local authorities’ duties towards childrenaccom......