London Borough of Bexley v MJ & Ors, Court of Appeal - Family Division, July 12, 2007, [2007] EWHC 1688 (Fam)
Linked as:
Extract
London Borough of Bexley v MJ & Ors, Court of Appeal - Family Division, July 12, 2007, [2007] EWHC 1688 (Fam)
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 1688 (Fam)
Case No: FD06C00469IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEFAMILY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 12/07/2007Before:MR. JUSTICE RODERIC WOOD- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr. Stephen Lyon for the Local AuthorityMiss Martha Cover for the MotherThe Father appeared In PersonMr. Malek Wan Daud for the ChildrenHearing dates: 2nd July to 11th July 2007- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMR. JUSTICE RODERIC WOODThis judgment is being handed down in private on 12th July 2007. It consists of 31 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.Draft 2 August 2007 11:41 Page 2Mr. Justice Roderic Wood:The Children:1. I am concerned with two children: OTJ (hereinafter referred to as ``O''), born on 1st April 1997, and thus 10 years and 2 months of age; and his younger brother EMJ (hereinafter referred to as ``E''), born on 16th January 2000, and thus 7 years and 5 months of age. 2. They were both born in the course of their parents' marriage, and thus both parents, to whom I shall refer in more detail below, have parental responsibility for them.3. Both children have been diagnosed with autism, coupled with, in the case of O, moderate learning difficulties, and in the case of E, with severe learning difficulties.The Applications:4. The Applications before me at the commencement of the hearing were as follows:i) On 22nd June 2006 the London Borough of B (hereinafter referred to as ``the local authority'') issued proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') seeking a care order in respect of each child pursuant to the provisions of Section 31 of the Act.ii) The local authority on 14th June 2007 issued an application for leave to withdraw those proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4.15 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991. iii) By notice of application of 19th June 2007, and miscellaneous letters the father invited the court to instruct Professor Z (a well-known and distinguished child and adolescent psychiatrist) to carry out an assessment of the children and prepare a report for the court on their respective conditions.iv) By letter of 23rd June 2007 the father invited the court to Ward the children pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. v) By letter, and in miscellaneous documents, the father sought a ``shared care'' order in respect of each child.vi) By letter of 25th June the father sought a greater degree of contact to each child than that which he now enjoys (see below).vii) By letter of 28th June 2007 the father invited me to see the children.viii) The mother, in the closing submissions of her counsel sought a residence order in her favour in respect of each child.ix) The mother further seeks definition of the father's contact.x) Both the mother and the father invited me, in entirely separate proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, to resolve certain difficulties in relation to their matrimonial finances.I shall refer later to the outcome of each of these applications not all of which were pursued in closing submissions.The Law:Draft 2 August 2007 11:41 Page 30Threshold:5. In approaching this case I have taken the following fully into account.6. When considering whether or not to make a Care or Supervision order section 31 of the Children Act operates. By virtue of the provisions of sub-section 2: ``A court may only make a Care Order or Supervision Order if it is satisfied;a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; andbi) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would reasonable to expect a parent to give him; orii) the child's being beyond parental control.''7. In sub-section 9 certain definitions of relevant terms are set out including:i) ``harm means ill-treatment or the impairment of he...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
