S (A Child), Re

S (A Child), Re

The judge exercised her discretion properly in refusing the residential parenting assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989. She considered the expert evidence, the child’s welfare and timescale, and the purpose of the assessment. The process was fair and Article 6 and 8 ECHR were not breached. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: TL; 1st Respondent: The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; 2nd Respondent: ED; 3rd Respondent: S (by a Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Refusal of Residential Parenting Assessment Under Section 38(6) Children Act 1989
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Residential Parenting Assessment, Section 38(6) Children Act 1989, Judicial Discretion, Case Management, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Article 8 ECHR (family Life)
Family Law Child Law Care Proceedings Residential Parenting Assessment Section 38(6) Children Act 1989 Judicial Discretion Case Management Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TL

Appellant

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

1st Respondent

ED

2nd Respondent

S (by a Children’s Guardian)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Refusal of Residential Parenting Assessment Under Section 38(6) Children Act 1989

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing a residential parenting assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the refusal breached the appellant's right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the refusal breached the appellant's right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised her discretion properly in refusing the residential parenting assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989. She considered the expert evidence, the child’s welfare and timescale, and the purpose of the assessment. The process was fair and Article 6 and 8 ECHR were not breached. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order for residential parenting assessment under section 38(6) Children Act 1989