In the matter of B (Children)
The appeal is academic as the care proceedings have concluded and no party has appealed the final care orders. The child C was represented by a solicitor appointed by the guardian, and section 41(3) did not apply. There was no breach of Article 6 rights, and the court cannot set aside the care order as it is not...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Guardian (Appellant); Respondent: Local Authority (First Respondent); Respondent: Mother (Second Respondent)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 August 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Child Representation, Care Proceedings, Appeal, Children Act 1989, Article 6 ECHR
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Guardian (Appellant)
Appellant
Local Authority (First Respondent)
Respondent
Mother (Second Respondent)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge erred in determining that the child C should be separately represented in care proceedings
- 2 Whether C's Article 6 rights were breached by not having a different solicitor from the guardian's solicitor
- 3 Whether the final care order in respect of C could be set aside
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is academic as the care proceedings have concluded and no party has appealed the final care orders. The child C was represented by a solicitor appointed by the guardian, and section 41(3) did not apply. There was no breach of Article 6 rights, and the court cannot set aside the care order as it is not before the court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment