Regester & Ors, R (on the application of) v Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 17, 2003, [2003] EWHC 235 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
Regester & Ors, R (on the application of) v Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 17, 2003, [2003] EWHC 235 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/2587/4182/2002 Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 235 AdminIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice StrandLondon WC2 Friday, 17 January 2003 B E F O R E:MR JUSTICE CHARLES - - - - - - -THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF (1) SOPHIE REGESTER AND OTHERS (2) SHARON PERKINS AND OTHERS (CLAIMANT)-v- CHILDREN AND FAMILY COURT ADVISORY AND SUPPORT SERVICE(DEFENDANT) - - - - - - -Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - -MR ROBIN SPON SMITH AND MR STEPHEN CRAGG (instructed by Messrs Harman and Harman, Canterbury, CT2 8BP) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANTMR NIGEL GIFFIN (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, London, SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T (As Approved by the Court) - - - - - - -Crown copyright© MR JUSTICE CHARLES: Introduction.1. This judgment relates to conjoined applications for a judicial review in two cases. At issue in both cases is the provision by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service ("CAFCASS") of an officer of that service for appointment by the court as a children's guardian in specified proceedings under the Children Act 1989. Expressions used in this paragraph are defined in legislation referred to later in this judgment. When I refer to a guardian, I am rferring to a children's guardian as so defined.2. In the cases under the Children Act 1989 giving rise to these proceedings, the local authority sought and was granted interim care orders ("ICOs"). In one of them the children had been removed from home before the making of the ICOs, first by being taken into police protection and then pursuant to Emergency Protection Orders ("EPOs"). In the other the child remained with her mother in a refuge following the making of the ICO but was later removed by the local authority pursuant to the powers and duties given to it by the ICO on the basis of an assertion that the mother had broken the agreement pursuant to which the local authority agreed that the child should be placed with her at a refuge. An application to discharge the ICO was refused. An ICO was continued on the basis that the child was not returned to the care of her mother. 3. When the EPO was made in the first case a guardian had been appointed but that guardian was not available for appointment in the later proceedings for a care order. In both cases the ICOs I have referred to were made before a guardian was appointed. In the second case a guardian was not made available for appointment until after the application to discharge the ICO had been dealt with. Solicitors acting for the children in both cases did not oppose the making of the ICOs and, in the second case, opposed the discharge of the ICO.4. The subject cases therefore involve three of the possible situations when a child is removed compulsorily from the care of his family. Another is removal as a consequence of the making of the first EPO or ICO. When a child is removed and taken into police protection, the maximum period that he or she can be so removed is 72 hours. After that, further placement away from the family has to be pursuant to a court order or by agreement with the persons having parental responsibility for the child.5. The subject cases therefore involve compulsory removal of children from their homes. This is, of course, a very serious step in respect of th...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
