L (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 179 (13 March 2013)

L (A Child), Re [2013] EWCA Civ 179 (13 March 2013)

The judge was justified in concluding that the child's emotional and psychological safety required immediate protection by removal from the grandparents' care. The use of section 37 to trigger interim care jurisdiction was permissible in the circumstances. The process, though not ideal, was adapted due to the risk of harm and did not amount to procedural unfairness. The interim care order was properly made after an on notice hearing where the appellants had opportunity to make submissions.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 179
Parties
Appellants: Mr and Mrs S; First Respondent: Wandsworth London Borough Council; Fourth Respondent: NYAS (National Youth Advocacy Service)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Family Division, High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Wardship, Removal of Child From Home, Procedural Fairness, Section 37 and Section 38 Children Act 1989, Threshold Criteria, Emergency Protection
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Wardship Removal of Child From Home Procedural Fairness Section 37 and Section 38 Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs S

Appellants

Wandsworth London Borough Council

First Respondent

NYAS (National Youth Advocacy Service)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Family Division, High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the making of an interim care order sanctioning immediate removal of a child at a without notice hearing was justified and lawful
  2. 2 Whether the procedural steps taken by the judge, including use of section 37 Children Act 1989, were permissible
  3. 3 Whether the threshold criteria for interim care orders were met

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was justified in concluding that the child's emotional and psychological safety required immediate protection by removal from the grandparents' care. The use of section 37 to trigger interim care jurisdiction was permissible in the circumstances. The process, though not ideal, was adapted due to the risk of harm and did not amount to procedural unfairness. The interim care order was properly made after an on notice hearing where the appellants had opportunity to make submissions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interim care order for immediate removal of the child from appellants' care confirmed
  • Case to proceed in Family Division for further evaluation of long-term arrangements