G v NEATH PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL AND OTHERS [2010] EWCA Civ 821
FACTS:-
G was the mother of three girls, aged seven, five and three. Care proceedings were brought by the local authority and by the time the matter reached the Court of Appeal, the three girls had been placed in short term foster care. G was learning disabled and her aspiration was to look after her children again, but it was conceded that there should be a specialist assessment first of all. The father of two of the girls was a heroin addict, and during the time he lived in the family home, the children were exposed to drug taking. The eldest child, C had been placed on the child protection register at birth. There had been fears on the part of the local authority that the children were at risk of physical and sexual abuse, although it was not their case that the mother had committed any deliberate act against them. This was simply a case of inadequate parenting.
The local authority with the approval of the court had carried out an assessment and there was also a psychological report on the mother. However there was no specialist parenting assessment and the psychologist told the court that she herself had no specialism in the field of learning difficulty. G’s counsel made representations to the court that there should be a specialist parenting assessment, but this was refused. There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Justice Wilson went over the facts of the case. The question was whether the judge fell into appealable error in refusing to grant an adjournment for the purposes of allowing there to be a specialist assessment. The care plans that had been made for the children severed them from their mother both legally and factually. Such a drastic step should only be taken when all avenues to rehabilitation had been explored. The mother had complained that her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. Wilson LJ said it went without saying that a judge should not infringe rights under Article 8 and that in some cases the safest means of avoiding infringement would be for him expressly to consider the rights and the circumstances in which interference with them was permissible. He made reference to a case, EH v X London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 344 where it was said that where a care plan led to full adoption, the full expression of the terms of Article 8 had to be explicit in the judgment. Therefore the mother’s appeal would be allowed and the case would be remitted to a judge for directions.
FACTS:-
G was the mother of three girls, aged seven, five and three. Care proceedings were brought by the local authority and by the time the matter reached the Court of Appeal, the three girls had been placed in short term foster care. G was learning disabled and her aspiration was to look after her children again, but it was conceded that there should be a specialist assessment first of all. The father of two of the girls was a heroin addict, and during the time he lived in the family home, the children were exposed to drug taking. The eldest child, C had been placed on the child protection register at birth. There had been fears on the part of the local authority that the children were at risk of physical and sexual abuse, although it was not their case that the mother had committed any deliberate act against them. This was simply a case of inadequate parenting.
The local authority with the approval of the court had carried out an assessment and there was also a psychological report on the mother. However there was no specialist parenting assessment and the psychologist told the court that she herself had no specialism in the field of learning difficulty. G’s counsel made representations to the court that there should be a specialist parenting assessment, but this was refused. There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Justice Wilson went over the facts of the case. The question was whether the judge fell into appealable error in refusing to grant an adjournment for the purposes of allowing there to be a specialist assessment. The care plans that had been made for the children severed them from their mother both legally and factually. Such a drastic step should only be taken when all avenues to rehabilitation had been explored. The mother had complained that her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. Wilson LJ said it went without saying that a judge should not infringe rights under Article 8 and that in some cases the safest means of avoiding infringement would be for him expressly to consider the rights and the circumstances in which interference with them was permissible. He made reference to a case, EH v X London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 344 where it was said that where a care plan led to full adoption, the full expression of the terms of Article 8 had to be explicit in the judgment. Therefore the mother’s appeal would be allowed and the case would be remitted to a judge for directions.