J (Children), Re [2017] EWCA Civ 398 (23 May 2017)

J (Children), Re [2017] EWCA Civ 398 (23 May 2017)

The judge's procedure at the IRH was procedurally unfair, deprived the mother and children of Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights, and failed to ensure proper representation and case analysis for the children. Final care orders should not have been made without a contested hearing and full procedural safeguards.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 398
Parties
Appellant: A McC; 1st Respondent: The London Borough of Wandsworth; 2nd Respondent: A J; 3rd and 4th Respondents: C J and J J (Minors) (Through their children's guardian); Intervener: Association of Lawyers for Children
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Orders) / Appeal Against Final Care Orders Made at Issues Resolution Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; final care orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Procedural Fairness, Children's Guardian, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Case Management, Threshold Criteria
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Orders Procedural Fairness Children's Guardian Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +2 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A McC

Appellant

The London Borough of Wandsworth

1st Respondent

A J

2nd Respondent

C J and J J (Minors) (Through their children's guardian)

3rd and 4th Respondents

Association of Lawyers for Children

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Orders) / Appeal Against Final Care Orders Made at Issues Resolution Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was it procedurally fair for the judge to make final care orders at the IRH without a contested hearing?
  2. 2 Did the judge accord Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR rights to the mother and children?
  3. 3 Was the absence of a Children's Guardian's final analysis and representation for J and C fatal to the process?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's procedure at the IRH was procedurally unfair, deprived the mother and children of Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights, and failed to ensure proper representation and case analysis for the children. Final care orders should not have been made without a contested hearing and full procedural safeguards.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; final care orders set aside.

Orders

  • Case to be listed for directions within 7 days before Sir James Munby, President.
  • Urgent re-hearing to be scheduled due to welfare concerns.