L (A Child), Re

L (A Child), Re

The judge was justified in concluding that the child's emotional and psychological safety required immediate removal from the grandparents' care under an interim care order. The use of Section 37 to trigger jurisdiction was permissible in the circumstances, and the without notice hearing was justified by the risk of harm if notice was given. The subsequent on-notice hearing provided sufficient procedural fairness. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: Mr and Mrs S; First Respondent: Wandsworth London Borough Council; Fourth Respondent: NYAS (on behalf of the child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Family Law (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Interim Care Order (high Court Family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Wardship, Removal of Child From Home, Procedural Fairness, Section 37 and Section 38 Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Wardship Removal of Child From Home Procedural Fairness Section 37 and Section 38 Children Act 1989

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 (on behalf of the child)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Family Law (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Interim Care Order (high Court Family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the making of an interim care order sanctioning immediate removal of the child was justified and lawful
  2. 2 Whether the process adopted (including without notice hearing) was procedurally fair and lawful
  3. 3 Whether the use of Section 37 Children Act 1989 was permissible in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was justified in concluding that the child's emotional and psychological safety required immediate removal from the grandparents' care under an interim care order. The use of Section 37 to trigger jurisdiction was permissible in the circumstances, and the without notice hearing was justified by the risk of harm if notice was given. The subsequent on-notice hearing provided sufficient procedural fairness. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interim care order upheld
  • Child to remain in interim care of local authority pending further review