Z (Interim Care Order) (Rev 1)

Z (Interim Care Order) (Rev 1)

The interim care order was set aside due to procedural irregularity: Z's competence to instruct a solicitor was not properly reassessed for the public law proceedings, the father was not given opportunity to adduce evidence, and the care plan approved was inconsistent with the interim nature of the order. These failures rendered the process unfair and the order unsustainable.

Parties
Appellant: AK; First Respondent: A London Borough Council; Second Respondent: RS; Third Respondent: Z (by his children’s guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Interim Care Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interim care order set aside; permission to appeal granted; application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Children Act 1989, Article 8 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Child Representation, Autism and Disability Rights
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Interim Care Orders Children Act 1989 Article 8 ECHR Procedural Fairness Child Representation +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AK

Appellant

A London Borough Council

First Respondent

RS

Second Respondent

Z (by his children’s guardian)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Interim Care Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim care order removing Z from his father's care was lawful and procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether Z's competence to instruct a solicitor was properly assessed
  3. 3 Whether the care plan approved was appropriate for an interim order

Ratio Decidendi

The interim care order was set aside due to procedural irregularity: Z's competence to instruct a solicitor was not properly reassessed for the public law proceedings, the father was not given opportunity to adduce evidence, and the care plan approved was inconsistent with the interim nature of the order. These failures rendered the process unfair and the order unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interim care order set aside; permission to appeal granted; application to adduce fresh evidence refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings remitted for urgent rehearing before a High Court judge.
  • Short-term interim care order made pending rehearing, based on revised care plan.