Care Orders Versus Supervision Orders - Which One and Why?

Hello. Welcome, everybody. My name is softer. Mahmoud, On today, I'm going to be speaking to your back care orders versus supervision orders. Which one is applicable on? Uh, why? It's a despite sigh session through data lowers off. May 2017 will go through some of these elements with you. Andi really? To try and find out any questions you may well have over the difference between these orders and also the similarities insofar as they are concerned. So I've prepared a couple of slides for you just to go through these areas and then dis, um, questions under discussion points thereafter to assist you it. Okay, So really first thing, I suppose, is really to ask ourselves What the what? The effective diesel design. Of course, With that in mind, these are both public Lord is thes are applied for in the section 31 off the Children active age nine and it will be ordinarily most cases the local salty or unauthorized person on their behalf. Who will be applying for such orders. The care order gives the applicant local authority. Parental responsibility for child was Theseus. Provision order does not care. Order gives the local fell to prevent responsibility, which they would then share with other people who currently also have prevent or responsibility was a supervision order, enables them to advise, assist and befriend the child in these circumstances. Now what are things to bear in mind is that even though a care order does give, prevent responsible there, of course, limitations with that. And this is also applicable in the case. Off interim care orders full care old as if they are made, will continue until the child is 18 years of age, unless discharged sooner was with an interim care order. This can only be made for the duration off the proceedings. Eso typically for care case. For example, Careful supervision order application is lodged unless say, it's it lasts for a period of some 26 weeks, for example, than that the interim care order could be made for a maximum period of D duration off deeper scenes that ceilings are going to extend beyond 26 weeks. Of course, it's possible for interim care an interim supervision order, respectively to be made for longer if necessary. Like say, there are limitations with the parental responsibility with which local thought he does acquire under a care order interim care order, even though it allows them to take steps such as deciding where the child is placed with Charles. Accommodated allows them to take certainly steps insofar as regulating contact and also issues over authorizations and issues over consented. A medical intervention. There are limitations. Wanted limitations is this. You'll find it under Section 33 sub Section three. Subsection A Off the Children activated Night specifically provides that the local thought he may not cause a chart to be brought up in a different religion to that of the child's family, even with an interim cabled or care order, and therefore there must give due regard to the chance religious cultural affiliations. And this is where, Interestingly, in the cases of adoption, for example, you've got her Section one subsection five. The Adoption Children Act of 2002 which in England was repealed a few years ago at biggest off the concerns that were raised as to the fact that it was been argued that may well be cases where by local authorities were giving too much regard to trying to find a perfect family. For example, when it comes to adoption. But despite that, you'll find that Section one subsection one of the adoption short, not 2002 is still very much is applicable into safaris and showing that if adoption is sort for the child than indoor circumstances, it's got to be the right order not only for Charles Minority, but indeed for life. And if it's not a question of finding a perfect match, but one which will be after meet a Zeman e of Dear Child's particular requirements and needs, as is quiet, so very important as far as the limitation when it comes to a care order, one of the other limitation is a cable does not allow to local authority to appoint a guardian for a child. Now here we're looking at testamentary guardian. But of course, apparent who has parent responsibility would be up to a point. Also, care order does not allow the local authority consent to Charles adoptions again. The only person who can consent to a charming adopted in terms of person or body who has brought into responsibility is in fact apparent with current responsibility. On also, one of the other limitations is this. Once there is a care order. Interim care order in place that no 1 may cause a child to be non by. New surname. Indeed, to make arrangements for a child to be removed from the United Kingdom without the consent of everybody else with parental responsibility or leave of the court. However, if say, the local thought, you have got the benefit of an interim care order or care order and say the chance placing foster care in the foster care, which is to take the child overseas for, say, holiday. Then in that situation, the local authority concern consent to child leaving the jurisdiction for paid less than a month on disease such as two neighbor than the chance to going on holiday, for example in or circumstances under consented, apparent with parent responsibility or leave of the court provided its for less than a month would not be quite in no circumstances. Now one of the other issues is the parental responsibility itself that the local authority acquires under a care order. Section 33 sub Section four of the Act provides that connects us that the local authority can exercise their parental responsibility to safeguard and promote a chance welfare on their fortresses where clearly when it comes to matters over, for example, placement on accommodation. But of course, they do need to ensure that they consult the chance pair in some of people who are involved and also taken to counter wishes and feelings off the child north. So other parties, indoor circumstances again favor important bay that in mind in your circumstances. Now there are other limitations as well. Of course, when it does come to the cave order, interim Care order and of mentioned case of bonnet against Bonnet LBC against a L. Another's, for example, this is a recent case. This was a 2000 and 17 case, and what what I found particularly interesting about this is it relates to the issue surrounding vaccinations and that this was one whereby, yet a seven month old child, the local thought he who had the benefit of an interim care order they wanted to have the child vaccinated against various types of vaccines. There was the influenza type B vaccine and also D PCV vaccine in both type situations. The mother, in fact objective to the child having this vaccination. Her argument was that she had elder Children on her argument was that she had had these vaccinations done off her older Children. She argues that there had suffered certain side effects, which didn't which charted culture again. But in fact, the medical evidence did not support that. In fact, there was no evidence in the records to suggest that, in fact, that had been the case to medical records, medical evidence, shoulder infective. These vaccines were not administered that there was potential risk of harm to a child, which could result in serious illness and potentially, in some extreme cases, even deaths. What's interesting about this legally, this case is the fact that even though the local authority had the benefit of an interim care order that does not enable them to go ahead and consent to this form of vaccination without either, in this case, that consented apparel with current responsibility or indeed on order from the court on insofar as applying to a court for an order which they did, Section nine subsection one of the Children that specifically plant provides that a local authority I could not apply for specific short of relationship issues issue a vaccination, for example, and instead the local thought he would need to then seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the high Court, renovated and invite Indian High Court jurisdiction under Section 100 subsection four to chose not to be utilized with a view to in a blink the high court to enable lawful thought to be granted to enable of vaccinations to then take place. That's in fact what they did. They applied using the inherent jurisdiction of the high court fruit to enable or thought to be granted to them so as to carry out dear the vaccination now in so far as the position with a supervision. Oldest concern as I mentioned, supervision orders would give the local authority the authority to advisor system befriend indoor circumstances. It does not give look a parent responsibility, as I mentioned on the child is then placed under the supervision of the local authority. In those circumstances on that, therefore effect would have to be given to the order on this basis. Now, one of the things with a supervision order is that it is possible to attach conditions to these, and this is set up within shut. Your three parts two and three of dear Children at and for example, there is the power given to give directions to the supervised charge, for example, so that, for example, of supervisor may require the supervised child to comply with any directions given to them, requiring them, for example, to do certain things such as where the child is to live. For example, presented themselves at a place in relation to specified activities. For example, on this is where would have consented a responsible person, etc. Provisional domain. Clearly requirement that such steps are taken in order to ensure that the child's welfare is maintained when it comes to, for example, health appointments or otherwise. 90 years of the length off supervision orders and K warders, as I mentioned on interim care and in trip supervision order can only continue for the duration of the proceedings where the care order This will be made of until the child is 18 years of age, unless it's discharged sooner, so that could be made for potentially to fall 18 years. It's father supervision order is concerned. This'd is in fact, different. Section 91 of the Children, for example, provides that supervision order so cease to have effect at the end of one year, beginning with the date on which it was made. But it may be extended for potentially a further two years thereafter, which would require application to be made from extensions so potentially see provisional that could be made for paid or up to three years. And this is where you'll find out in these types of situations. It may well be necessary for the local Thornton to apply for an extension to receive provisional one certain the Danish 12 month or up to 12 month period has in fact her expired, not a case of S J, a minor care or supervision order of 99 threes of a useful case, because this is a case which sets out the differences between care on that supervision order. So, for example, this case highlights that with a care order, interim care order, the local thought he's granted parental responsibility, and therefore they have came control over the arrangements for the child in the emergency. For example, day after your thoughts to remove the child to a place of safety without because to court, as long as they can justify that it was necessary on that it was a proportionate step to take in your circumstances was with a supervision order. The local thought it does not have a parent responsibility in that regard and therefore safeguard in the welfare of the child rest vein. Much upon chance care is well done upon the local authority that local thought like, say, is there to advise a system befriended nor circumstances. And of course, it may be the case that if there is the benefit of a supervision order and the local authority, do you need to take emergency steps, then it may be that they need to be lodging. An application for the Magic Protection Order under Section 44 off The Children Act, for example, may be seeking care order, Windows circumstances and one of the other big differences between a care and supervision orders that which relates to the exclusion provision. That is to say that with an interim care order as opposed to a Final Four care order, it is possible for the court to attach it exclusion requirement under Section 38 A off the Children. This is where let's say, the local authority of large Cape ceilings based upon domestic abuse is the principal reason, Let's say the local authority of the view that they are content for the child to remain placed, stay at home with the mother. But Angela Bennett basis of an interim care order. And they seek for there to be an exclusion requirement on the Section 30 x 38 a. Says to required a father to vacate the property now is longer. They are satisfied that the mother will be up to look after child's needs. Indoor second, Johnson's on as long as the father then remains excluded, possibly with the benefit, maybe even a power of rest. And if they feel that the child's welfare will be adequately matching or circumstances, then that's where you may find that the court will then enable de Entrance C provisional to continue on that basis, with the child being placed a home with the parent like you, the mother in that situation on foot exclusion requirement to be attached. So that's very much were those types of situations may well actually prove successful now, one of the other key similarities between so one of the other differences, I should have said, is with a supervision. What the court does have jurisdiction to also make, in addition to the supervision order, maybe a child arrangements order. So, for example, it may be the case that if there is a supervision automata alongside that, there was an order for, say, they're to be deeper vision surrounding assay contact, for example, in that situation, or perhaps a specific issue in all circumstances. Sometimes you find that it may be the case that the court is going to be granting a child arrangements world, especially find a child lives with, said the grandmother. Alongside that, there is a supervision order size to enable that adapter placement tend to be supervised indoor circumstances. So that can happen was that's not the case With interim care in care orders. It's not possible to have a child of agents order running alongside a interim cable care will dwindle circumstances and so Fars similarities between care and supervision orders. One of the key similarities is the fact that before either order, whether it's an interim or full order is made, the court need to be satisfied at the threshold criteria are met. The threshold criteria do differ depending upon whether one is applying for an interim or a full order. It's far as an interim order is concerned. Section 38 subsection two of the Children Act would need to be met. And this is where many of you will know that the local thought wouldn't satisfy the court, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that unless that the child concerned is suffering was like suffer significant harm on that harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to care. Giving to a child like to be given if the order are not made were not being what it would be reasonable to expect. Apparent to give off course. The other part of the limb could be used, which is we wanted stating that child is actually beyond parental control Now the important issue here is the fact that with these orders the for an interim order, one needs to show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child concerned itself. Ingle like to suffer significant hunts was for full order under Section 31 subsection two. It's not sufficient to show that there are reasonable grounds. Simply one needs to go further and beyond that to show that the child concerned is in fact suffering was like to suffer significant harm at the point of which protective measures were taken. Now, one of the other some key similarities between the care and supervision order is this. If the fresh order not met for purposes of section section 31 2 or 38 to then the court cannot in fact go on and decide what old referred me to make on. The only exception tonight is if say that local authority of logic, care or supervision, order application, unless assume they're going to be seeking to apply to withdraw from the proceedings, that in that situation it would not be necessary to satisfy the fresher criteria before the court and goes on to hear the application as to whether or not to allow permission to withdraw from the proceedings. This'll was made very clear in the case of WBC against A. This was a 2016 family court decision, but by here the local thought e were to put together a special statement on the basis that we're relying upon Section 31 to be, and that is that the child was beyond preventing control. Now, what was important about this case is that the court questioned whether or not the first shot need to be met at all. If the parties, as in this case, we're agreed on there being no order. And in fact, the court did go on to say that when it came to public law proceedings, as such as what had been lodged here. And in fact, there was a two stage approach, any public law proceedings. The court did say that determination of public law proceedings involves, in fact, two stage approach, and that is one nasty first to deal with the issue of threshold. And then once that's done with then and only then does kind according and gone on the ODI, she off welfare. So that's only the only exception is if local felt is seeking leave to withdraw from persons under 29.4 off the fpr where here one would not need to satisfy threshold before then, when Tom decided what older, if any to make on the court went on to say that if in fact, a local authority cannot satisfy special at this point taking account, the fact that the burden is upon them, then in that situation it follows that a logical conclusion is that turned a court must have dismissed the applications. That's very important to ensure special and met before one can go on and decide what order if we need to make indoor circumstances things. Cases also very useful because it emphasizes the fact that there are, of course, of angel borders which are available which to court need to consider and decided what order to make. But a court needs to work on a promise that they should start with a less interventionist principle on only make the more draconian care or interim care order if it's necessary in the circumstances. So if in fact the risk factors can be adequately Matt dealt with by with, say, either no order or perhaps in trim supervision, order supervision would have been granted. And of course, the court can do that without the need. Therefore, to make the more do Cornyn order in those circumstances. Now, finally, what I want to discuss review is the position so in the age of the child, because this has been a recent issue which has cropped up in the recent authority. So, for example, in the case of Reem Children. This 2016 quarter appeal decision the court really reinforced the position. Serenity, continuation of cable supervision orders on a question, therefore, is kind of care or supervision order, whether it's on an interim basis or for final order, be made beyond the age of 16 or 17 for the child on that, This case makes it very clear. Lord Justice Macfarlane made it very clear that there was no jurisdiction under the Children activated night to make a care order with respect to a child who has reached the age of 17 or 16. In the case of a child who is married, always a civil partner on this was made very clear on is made very clear when one looks at section safety one subsection three of the Children off 1989 on DAT. This provision applies just as much to an interim care order as it does to a final killed indoor circumstances. So the same principle would apply here. Oh, it's a very important therefore, to bear in mind that there are limitations as to the length of time that so the age of after which these orders coming made. Having said that if say, you have already got a child who say approaching 17 who is not married nor civil partner when the civil partnership who's already made subject or four care order do in that situation, the order can in fact continue Teoh their 18th birthday, and this is made very clear. Under Section 91 Subsection 12 of the Children Act, which provides that where K border has been made by to a child 17th birthday in the K water will actually continue in force until the charge attains the age of 18. Unless it's brought to an end soon in those second chances. Okay, so you can see today I've spent some time going through review What supervision orders are. Care orders are differences between these and also the similarities between these and you can see there are certainly a number of similarities between them. Hope doesn't really useful session for you. Can I? Thank you very much indeed for listening and speaking next time. Thank you very much. Bye. For now