A (A CHILD) V LEEDS CITY COUNCIL [2011] EWCA Civ 1365
FACTS:-A came from a violent family. His father D, had been charged with the murder of his mother, for which he entered a plea of not guilty. D had also been charged and found guilty of another violent offence against D’s aunt, Ms. M who brought these proceedings in the family court.
Ms. M took the child into her care and took out an application for parental responsibility, with initially the support of the local authority. She had provided the child with good day to day care and continuity. However the local authority then applied for an interim care order, which was eventually made. They announced their intention to move the child into foster care, and made an application to the court, which application was granted. Ms. M appealed for permission to appeal that decision, and permission was given.
JUDGEMENT:-Lord Justice Thorpe said that the simple and familiar question in this appeal was whether the appellant could puncture the judge’s reasoned explanation of his discretionary choice. The appellant’s counsel had sought to submit that the judicial misdirection and error lay in one particular paragraph of the judgment which said:-
“Against that background, how is the Local Authority to identify the risk? Is it a coherent child protection plan for the Local Authority to wait anxiously on the sidelines in the hope that either there is no risk, or that if there is such a risk to hope that the Local Authority gets wind of it before there is unhappy development? In my judgment not.”
Thorpe LJ said that this was not the most “felicitous” paragraph in the judgment, but it could not be read in isolation. The judge had considered the following factors:-
1) Ms. M’s understanding of the risks posed to her in the context of domestic violence
2) Her use of recreational drugs
3) Her ability to open and honest with and co-operate with professionals charged with the welfare of the child
The judge had not found Ms. M to be an honest and reliable witness. That was the context behind the paragraph of his judgment above. Before reaching his conclusion, he sensibly applied the welfare check list, and within that, he had to give proper weight to the good day to day care that Ms. M had provided and to the inevitable emotional and psychological harm that the child would suffer if in care. The judge had explained his choice in terms that withstood all criticisms. The appeal would be dismissed.
Lord Justice McFarlane agreed.
FACTS:-A came from a violent family. His father D, had been charged with the murder of his mother, for which he entered a plea of not guilty. D had also been charged and found guilty of another violent offence against D’s aunt, Ms. M who brought these proceedings in the family court.
Ms. M took the child into her care and took out an application for parental responsibility, with initially the support of the local authority. She had provided the child with good day to day care and continuity. However the local authority then applied for an interim care order, which was eventually made. They announced their intention to move the child into foster care, and made an application to the court, which application was granted. Ms. M appealed for permission to appeal that decision, and permission was given.
JUDGEMENT:-Lord Justice Thorpe said that the simple and familiar question in this appeal was whether the appellant could puncture the judge’s reasoned explanation of his discretionary choice. The appellant’s counsel had sought to submit that the judicial misdirection and error lay in one particular paragraph of the judgment which said:-
“Against that background, how is the Local Authority to identify the risk? Is it a coherent child protection plan for the Local Authority to wait anxiously on the sidelines in the hope that either there is no risk, or that if there is such a risk to hope that the Local Authority gets wind of it before there is unhappy development? In my judgment not.”
Thorpe LJ said that this was not the most “felicitous” paragraph in the judgment, but it could not be read in isolation. The judge had considered the following factors:-
1) Ms. M’s understanding of the risks posed to her in the context of domestic violence
2) Her use of recreational drugs
3) Her ability to open and honest with and co-operate with professionals charged with the welfare of the child
The judge had not found Ms. M to be an honest and reliable witness. That was the context behind the paragraph of his judgment above. Before reaching his conclusion, he sensibly applied the welfare check list, and within that, he had to give proper weight to the good day to day care that Ms. M had provided and to the inevitable emotional and psychological harm that the child would suffer if in care. The judge had explained his choice in terms that withstood all criticisms. The appeal would be dismissed.
Lord Justice McFarlane agreed.