C (Discharge of care order), Re [2017] EW Misc 6 (CC) (31 January 2017)

C (Discharge of care order), Re [2017] EW Misc 6 (CC) (31 January 2017)

The court found that the children are settled, secure, and thriving in their foster placement, do not wish to have direct contact with their father, and that the father's persistent non-cooperation, refusal to engage with the local authority, and behaviour have prevented any realistic prospect of the children returning to his care. The welfare of the children requires the care orders and s.34(4) order to remain in place. The father's repeated applications and conduct have caused emotional strain to the children, justifying a further s.91(14) order to restrict further applications without leave of the court.

Citation
[2017] EW Misc 6 (CC)
Parties
Applicant/father: RSC; Respondent/local Authority: Salford City Council; Respondent/children: A, B, and C (children, by their Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Proceedings (care Order Discharge, Contact, S.91(14) Restriction) / Final Judgment on Applications to Discharge Care Order, Revoke S.34(4) Order, and Impose S.91(14) Restriction
Outcome
Father's applications to discharge care orders and revoke s.34(4) order dismissed; s.91(14) order made restricting further applications by the father without leave of the court.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Contact With Children in Care, Discharge of Care Orders, Section 34(4) Orders, Section 91(14) Orders, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Care Orders Contact With Children in Care Discharge of Care Orders Section 34(4) Orders Section 91(14) Orders Welfare of the Child +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RSC

Applicant/father

Salford City Council

Respondent/local Authority

A, B, and C (children, by their Guardian)

Respondent/children

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Proceedings (care Order Discharge, Contact, S.91(14) Restriction) / Final Judgment on Applications to Discharge Care Order, Revoke S.34(4) Order, and Impose S.91(14) Restriction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the care orders in respect of the three children should be discharged under s.39 Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the s.34(4) order restricting contact should be revoked
  3. 3 Whether a s.91(14) order restricting further applications by the father should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the children are settled, secure, and thriving in their foster placement, do not wish to have direct contact with their father, and that the father's persistent non-cooperation, refusal to engage with the local authority, and behaviour have prevented any realistic prospect of the children returning to his care. The welfare of the children requires the care orders and s.34(4) order to remain in place. The father's repeated applications and conduct have caused emotional strain to the children, justifying a further s.91(14) order to restrict further applications without leave of the court.

Court Disposition

Father's applications to discharge care orders and revoke s.34(4) order dismissed; s.91(14) order made restricting further applications by the father without leave of the court.

Orders

  • Care orders in respect of the three children to remain in force.
  • Section 34(4) order restricting direct contact between father and children to remain in force.