A (Children) (Remote Hearing: Care And Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 583 (30 April 2020)

A (Children) (Remote Hearing: Care And Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 583 (30 April 2020)

The judge's decision to proceed with a hybrid hearing was wrong because the father's disabilities and lack of technology made meaningful participation impossible, the process was procedurally imbalanced, and the urgency was not sufficient to override fairness concerns. The hearing would not be fair or just in the circumstances, and the opposition of all parties except the Children's Guardian was a powerful factor against proceeding.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 583
Parties
Appellant Father: Mr A; First Respondent Local Authority: Cumbria County Council; Second Respondent (mother of Oldest 4 Children): Ms B; Third Respondent (mother of 2 Youngest Children): Mrs A; Fourth to Seventh Respondent Children: Children (by their Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care and Placement Orders) / Appeal From Family Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's order set aside.
Legal Topics
Remote Hearings, Care Orders, Placement for Adoption, COVID 19 Protocols, Fair Trial Rights
Family Law Civil Procedure Remote Hearings Care Orders Placement for Adoption COVID 19 Protocols Fair Trial Rights

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr A

Appellant Father

Cumbria County Council

First Respondent Local Authority

Ms B

Second Respondent (mother of Oldest 4 Children)

Mrs A

Third Respondent (mother of 2 Youngest Children)

Children (by their Children's Guardian)

Fourth to Seventh Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care and Placement Orders) / Appeal From Family Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was appropriate and fair to proceed with a remote or hybrid final hearing in care and placement proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly given the father's disabilities and opposition from most parties.
  2. 2 Whether the urgency of the case justified a remote or hybrid hearing contrary to guidance and the wishes of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to proceed with a hybrid hearing was wrong because the father's disabilities and lack of technology made meaningful participation impossible, the process was procedurally imbalanced, and the urgency was not sufficient to override fairness concerns. The hearing would not be fair or just in the circumstances, and the opposition of all parties except the Children's Guardian was a powerful factor against proceeding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's order set aside.

Orders

  • The hearing fixed for 27 April 2020 is vacated.
  • The matter is to be relisted for a further case management hearing before HHJ Dodd in mid-May 2020.