T (Minors) [1996] EWCA Civ 1022 (21st November, 1996)

T (Minors) [1996] EWCA Civ 1022 (21st November, 1996)

The appeal was allowed in part because, in relation to S, the local authority no longer sought to terminate contact and there was no foreseeable need to do so; thus, the section 34(4) order should be discharged. In relation to B, the care plan and therapeutic needs justified the continuation of the order, and there was no material change warranting discharge.

Citation
[1996] EWCA Civ 1022
Parties
Appellant/mother: Mrs T; Respondent/guardian: Guardian ad Litem; Respondent/local Authority: West Sussex County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Chichester County Court Decision on Application to Discharge Section 34(4) Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; section 34(4) order discharged in relation to S but not B.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Contact With Children in Care, Section 34 Children Act 1989, Discharge of Contact Orders
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Contact With Children in Care Section 34 Children Act 1989 Discharge of Contact Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs T

Appellant/mother

Guardian ad Litem

Respondent/guardian

West Sussex County Council

Respondent/local Authority

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Chichester County Court Decision on Application to Discharge Section 34(4) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 34(4) Children Act 1989 order authorising the local authority to terminate contact between mother and children S and B should be discharged
  2. 2 What is the correct legal approach to applications to discharge such orders

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because, in relation to S, the local authority no longer sought to terminate contact and there was no foreseeable need to do so; thus, the section 34(4) order should be discharged. In relation to B, the care plan and therapeutic needs justified the continuation of the order, and there was no material change warranting discharge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; section 34(4) order discharged in relation to S but not B.

Orders

  • Section 34(4) order authorising refusal of contact between mother and S is discharged.
  • Section 34(4) order authorising refusal of contact between mother and B remains in force.