S (A Child), Re

S (A Child), Re

The appeal was allowed because the judge lacked jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction to make the order sought, failed to apply the Re: DE protocol, and made findings of fact against the father without hearing his evidence, resulting in a serious procedural irregularity. The removal of the child was not properly justified as the only viable or least interventionist option, and the process was unfair to the parties.

Parties
First Appellant: Mother; Second Appellant: Father; Respondent Local Authority: London Borough of Islington; Intervener: Child's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/care Order) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Removal of Child From Parental Care, Inherent Jurisdiction, Human Rights Act Injunctions, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Removal of Child From Parental Care Inherent Jurisdiction Human Rights Act Injunctions Procedural Fairness

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

First Appellant

Father

Second Appellant

London Borough of Islington

Respondent Local Authority

Child's Guardian

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/care Order) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge had jurisdiction to make the order sought
  2. 2 Whether the judge was wrong in his approach to the application, specifically regarding the protocol in Re: DE
  3. 3 Whether the removal of the child was the only viable or least interventionist option

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge lacked jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction to make the order sought, failed to apply the Re: DE protocol, and made findings of fact against the father without hearing his evidence, resulting in a serious procedural irregularity. The removal of the child was not properly justified as the only viable or least interventionist option, and the process was unfair to the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Findings against the father set aside
  • Case remitted for case management directions before a different circuit judge