A (Children) (Remote Hearing: Care And Placement Orders)

A (Children) (Remote Hearing: Care And Placement Orders)

On the facts of this case, the judge's decision to proceed with a hybrid/remote hearing was wrong because Mr A could not adequately engage due to his disabilities and lack of technology, the process was imbalanced, and urgency was not sufficiently pressing to justify immediate hearing.

Parties
Appellant Father: Mr A; First Respondent Local Authority: Cumbria County Council; Third Respondent: Mrs A; Fourth to Seventh Respondent: Children by their Children’s Guardian; Second Respondent: Ms B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Decision to Proceed With Hybrid/remote Final Hearing in Care and Placement for Adoption Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Remote Hearings, Care Orders, Placement for Adoption, COVID 19 Protocol, Fair Trial, Case Management Discretion
Family Law Child Welfare Remote Hearings Care Orders Placement for Adoption COVID 19 Protocol Fair Trial Case Management Discretion

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr A

Appellant Father

Cumbria County Council

First Respondent Local Authority

Mrs A

Third Respondent

Children by their Children’s Guardian

Fourth to Seventh Respondent

Ms B

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Decision to Proceed With Hybrid/remote Final Hearing in Care and Placement for Adoption Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contested final hearing in care and placement for adoption proceedings should proceed remotely or in hybrid form during COVID-19 lockdown
  2. 2 Whether the process would be fair to the parents, particularly given Mr A's disabilities
  3. 3 Whether urgency justified proceeding with a remote/hybrid hearing

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts of this case, the judge's decision to proceed with a hybrid/remote hearing was wrong because Mr A could not adequately engage due to his disabilities and lack of technology, the process was imbalanced, and urgency was not sufficiently pressing to justify immediate hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's decision set aside.

Orders

  • Final hearing fixed for 27 April vacated.
  • Case to be relisted for further case management hearing in mid-May before HHJ Dodd.