CT & Anor v Bristol City Council & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 213 (14 March 2007)

CT & Anor v Bristol City Council & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 213 (14 March 2007)

The judge erred in law by mischaracterising the proposed residential assessment as therapy or an assessment of the parents/relationship, rather than an assessment of the child within the family context as permitted by section 38(6) Children Act 1989. The assessment was necessary to provide the court with essential information for the final decision, as supported by expert evidence. The refusal was therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 213
Parties
1st Appellant: CT; 2nd Appellant: PH; 1st Respondent: Bristol City Council; 2nd Respondent: PL; 3rd Respondent: SL & MH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Refusal of Residential Assessment Under S.38(6) Children Act 1989
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Residential Assessment, Section 38(6) Children Act 1989, Parental Assessment, Judicial Discretion, Human Rights (article 8)
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Residential Assessment Section 38(6) Children Act 1989 Parental Assessment Judicial Discretion Human Rights (article 8)

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CT

1st Appellant

PH

2nd Appellant

Bristol City Council

1st Respondent

PL

2nd Respondent

SL & MH

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Refusal of Residential Assessment Under S.38(6) Children Act 1989

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in refusing a residential assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Proper interpretation and scope of section 38(6) in light of Re C and Re G
  3. 3 Whether the proposed assessment was of the child or impermissibly of the parents/relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by mischaracterising the proposed residential assessment as therapy or an assessment of the parents/relationship, rather than an assessment of the child within the family context as permitted by section 38(6) Children Act 1989. The assessment was necessary to provide the court with essential information for the final decision, as supported by expert evidence. The refusal was therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Order for residential assessment under section 38(6) Children Act 1989 made