P -S (Children)

P -S (Children)

A child party to care proceedings has a right to be heard, but not a right to give evidence; the judge properly balanced the risk of harm against any evidential benefit and was correct to refuse M's application to give evidence. The care order was justified by clear evidence of neglect and lack of adequate parenting, and the child's wishes, though strong, could not override welfare concerns.

Parties
Appellant: M (Appellant); Respondent: Mother; Respondent: Carmarthenshire County Council; Respondent: A's Father; Respondent: Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Appeal From Final Care Order and Refusal to Allow Child to Give Evidence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child's Right to Be Heard, Care Orders, Welfare Checklist, Child Giving Evidence, Children Act 1989, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 6 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Child's Right to Be Heard Care Orders Welfare Checklist Child Giving Evidence Children Act 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M (Appellant)

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Carmarthenshire County Council

Respondent

A's Father

Respondent

Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Appeal From Final Care Order and Refusal to Allow Child to Give Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a child party to care proceedings have a right to give evidence?
  2. 2 Should the mature child's wishes and feelings be given presumptive weight in welfare decisions?
  3. 3 Was the refusal to allow M to give evidence lawful and appropriate?

Ratio Decidendi

A child party to care proceedings has a right to be heard, but not a right to give evidence; the judge properly balanced the risk of harm against any evidential benefit and was correct to refuse M's application to give evidence. The care order was justified by clear evidence of neglect and lack of adequate parenting, and the child's wishes, though strong, could not override welfare concerns.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Care order affirmed
  • Application for child to give evidence refused