Hello. Good morning everybody very pleased to welcome you to today's session. My name's after Mahmoud and I'm doing this session through data law where today they're not going to be speaking to you on session to surrounding the matters as to use of Lordship and also inherent jurisdiction and family case season as you know. Then in the last session I spent some time going through with you what the use of warship. Here's the fact it's part and parcel of the inherent jurisdiction. We looked at the forms, we looked at the procedure, we looked at who can apply somebody who has a genuine interest. We looked at the position of the respondents a child of course being a party. And I also spent some time going through with you the fact that keyboard is and uh wards of cork due to war chip order itself cannot coexist. And also the limitations of the use of the warship provisions and inherent jurisdiction and that you're looking to utilize it for the purpose of acquiring and an outcome a result which cannot be achieved through other means. The classic example being in relation to it's not being used a principle in relation to matters related to accommodation of Children for example. And we looked at some private law concepts as well in that regard private Children or disputes today. What I'm going to be doing is going through warship in more details. Looking specifically at the use of worship and having jurisdiction when it comes to public child care cases will be looking at the use of inherent jurisdiction. When it comes to duties to consult parents. For example, we're looking at the current dilemma surrounding vaccinations for example And he had his ties in With the COVID-19 pandemic insofar as vaccinations are concerned. And we'll also be looking at some of the other matters surrounding other elements of parental responsibility in that regard. We're taking you through d position with for example matters relation nationality in that regard as well. So those are some of the things which will be covering in today's session and as always, don't put the copyright acknowledgment here for you acknowledging crown copyright and all sort of DFT as corporate author. And we're looking at the laws of october 2021. So what I want to start with then is the position with the use of the inherent jurisdiction when it comes to consulting parents. Now, just to put this into context then when one is in care proceedings uh then of course even if, say you've got father who doesn't have parental responsibility, there is still of course that duty imposed upon the local authority in those cases to keep the father informed and in some respects, also consulted, you've got your duties In the Children Act of Age nine in England, for example, in the section 22, a through to see of the Children for Example relates to two inform consult in certain situations. But what if as in this case of la against X Y. Z restriction of father's role in proceedings. Just 20 nineties decision. What if by informing the father it's going to cause the Children potentially significant harm. What can you do in those situations? Is there a way of absolving Their responsibility under section 20 of the Children Act in particular for example. So this is really this case looks at and if so is that within our jurisdiction could be used? Well, the facts here were these you had the child's father who did have parent responsibly for the child and he was a party to the proceedings. The child's mother had been killed by the child's father and they had been serving a lengthy prison sentence. Now the local authority made several applications to the court. They applied, for example, for an order Under section 34 subsection for the Children for permission to be able to refuse contact between the child the Children here and the father. This is a case where by the local authority we're looking to applied to revoke the placement orders which had been made for the Children on the basis that adoption was no longer than the Children's interests. And they they were now looking at alternative plans power of long term foster care. They were also seeking for the Father to have no contact with the Children at all. Hence they were seeking that authorization via section 34 4 Children. They also put an application in Vaida course, inherent jurisdiction with a sort of declaration that the local authority would be completely relieved of any of their duties under Children active console or to give notice to her father or to inform him of any decisions relating to a child. And that was really the thinking behind this. That's why this was being sought. This was not a case with the the father claimed that he was going to be hurt in a child. This is one where he was saying that he was seeking to rely upon his rights under article 86 and eight of his european Convention on Human Rights where he sought to participate in the proceedings in this case is very similar to other decisions which have been reached on this. There was a case called X and Y. In fact like I just mentioned to you that's the one about the two Children who in that case the plan was one of had been one of adoptions sadly that didn't work out for the Children and the local authority when I look into revolt placement orders and the Children were so frightened of their father because of the circumstances that they didn't wish him to know. So that sex and wide inherent jurisdiction was used in this case of L. A. And X. Y. Zed was similar. This involved a child who likes that her father had murdered a child's mother and it was felt that it would be disproportionate to inform the father of the child's position. And it was felt by the local authority that would be inappropriate to have to consult the father to inform him as to the arrangements and the plans that were being made in relation to the child's welfare. But the father when he was notified of course of the applications, so he's got to have the right to of course, put forward his views or B he's going to be given very limited information in. So far as the case is concerned, his argument was that he's got right to fair trial and also because his father and because he had parental responsibility. He said that he's got his right to respect privacy. Family life, which means he is ongoing relationship. The right to be consulted a right to be informed in relation to his child's welfare. So he did wish to participate in the proceedings. And his argument was that it was difficult to see how he could interfere in his daughter's life when he didn't even know where she was and with whom she was living. So that was his argument that he wished to remain involved to some extent. But in fact on the facts, the court did grant the declarations that local authority was seeking the court on the facts. Was satisfied. And member. This is a test for warship. The court was satisfied on the facts. That the father's continued involvement in the proceedings was deeply harmful to a child. These orders of course, to enable local authority to be absolved from their responsibility were exceptional under fact. But here they were necessary to meet the Charles emotional and psychological well being on the fax out of court would in fact enable both applications to be made. Having said that what you find is with somebody's applications, such as the other cases I mentioned the X and Y case. What you find is of course, we're still require some level of consultation or certainly informing the father in some respects, but more so in relation to some of the more extreme situations, for example, if a child has suddenly passed away over the child was very ill for example, and there are certain situations that the court would still require the local authority to notify father about the court did say that early consideration needs to be given to these types of cases as to whether these applications should or should not be lodged in the first instance. That's the first thing is the only consideration needs to be given responsibility of course falls on the local authority and the under the Children Act. If they have the child in their care, You've got your duties in the section 22 for example, and part 12 provides who should be an automatic party to proceedings and you should be given notice or here given that the father had parental responsibility is an automatic respondent to. For example, the application under Section 34 for the Children Act. Even if it didn't have pr he's the father. He's somebody to whom notices to be given anyway. And it is an issue that should be considered in each case, particularly with the involvement of that person could cause or will cause. That's how significant emotional or psychological harm. But the situations are unusual and highly fact specific the court says. So you're not going to get gain these orders routinely. And again, that typifies why then haven't jurisdiction route is being utilized to be able to acquire these orders. As I mentioned, the court did allow then the local authority to obtain and leave and therefore too involved in having jurisdiction of the High Court. And the grounds under Section 100 subsection four need to be made out because the court needs to be satisfied by the local authority. That what they were trying to achieve could not be achieved through any other route other than through the inherent jurisdiction. The court was satisfied on the fact that if such an order was not made, the child was likely to suffer significant psychological emotional harm. Knowing that details about her would be disclosed to and shared with the father and therefore that it was felt under circumstances would be disproportionate. So, in fact, the order was granted that then brings me onto the position with vaccinations. And as you can appreciate this has been obviously a very topical and also a controversial issue. Certainly since we've had not just the position with the covid pandemic from early March 2020, but indeed, even prior to that, there were uh issues surrounding the appropriate use of inherent jurisdiction when it came to vaccinations of Children, particularly when you've got local authorities involved. So I just wanted to go back firstly, before we look at the current position to this case of S. L. This is re sl permission to vaccinate this 2017 decision and this was really one of the first cases of its kind, which looked at the specific issue surrounding the responsibilities upon local authorities when they are seeking to have Children vaccinated immunized against against certain illnesses and diseases. And what happened here is the local authorities sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, whereby they sought a declaration that it was in fact in the child's best interests for. The local authorities were given permission to arrange for the child to receive the influenza type B vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugated PCV vaccine circumstances with a rather objected to this. So, the local authority did apply vied inherent jurisdiction. Root for this purpose. And the court did say that if, as in this case, a child is in the care of the local authority, then as a result of Section nine subsection one of the Children at the local authority cannot apply for specific issue or to respect to the issue of vaccination because as you'll appreciate this was a private Children. Okay, so this was a dispute between mother and father, for example. Mother for example, was opposing the vaccination, but less side of father was seeking it and something like that would be dealt with by way of a specific issue application and the court would obviously then determine that in that regard. But here, Section nine Subsection 1 does not allow specific issue made if the child is subject to came control in the key of the local authority which the child was child was subject to an interim care order. So the local authority therefore, was sort of involved in having jurisdiction on the Section 100 subsection for on the basis that this outcome could not be achieved through the general legislation. They therefore sought leave under Section one 100 subsection three. And their argument was that if this vaccination was not permitted, this child was likely dentists suffer potentially significant harm in contracting those illnesses. And a court on the fact fact, did in fact grant a declaration that was being sought and granted the permission of the court is satisfied that it was in the child's best interest to receive the the vaccine, a vaccine and the PCV vaccines on the fact that felt that in fact was India the child's best interest. So you can see the thinking behind that. But things have moved on somewhat. And a few years later last Year, in fact, early last year, February of 2020, we had the case we take and this was a case which was handed down by Mr Justice Haddon. And this was similar to the sl case I just mentioned in that local authority here applied once again violent how the jurisdiction of the High Court for an order that it was in the interests of the 10 month old child to receive a schedule of vaccinations. So again, it was similar to the previous case of sl that I've just mentioned. The father was opposing that the child was subject to kept ceiling subject to interim care order. Both the father and indeed, the mother was opposing the father's arguments for these. He said that he opposed the vaccination on the basis that he was driven by this belief that neither the court nor the state through the arms of the local authority had any jurisdiction to make decisions in relation to his Children. So, his view was that the court nor the local authority could make such decisions for vaccination otherwise of his Children. The mother opposed and her argument was a different one. She said that her other Children with her other partner in the past had had multiple health conditions. Mother claimed that these conditions may be linked to the vaccination. So she was really worried that if these vaccinations went ahead, that the child could then be subjected to more multiple health problems going forward. So that was her argument and this is where medical evidence was then produced. And his lordship did say this, his lordship said that, given that what was being sought here was routine medical vaccinations. Ultimately, his routine vaccinations. Then his lordship questioned whether actually it was even appropriate for the local authority to even Make the application via inherent jurisdiction. Because, remember, section 100 subsection for and I'll keep going back to That wants us to be satisfied and satisfied the court, that the outcome you're trying to achieve cannot be achieved through any other general provisions under the Children Act Otherwise. And here, in fact, his lordship took a different view. His lordship said that the the result at the local authorities were seeking does actually come within Section 33 Subsection three of the Children Act. Now, that provisions many of you know, is where by the local authority are permitted to determine the extent to which other people will exercise their parent responsibility, and they can take certain decisions themselves in the exercise of current responsibility. And his lordship did say that when it came to routine vaccinations, such as the ones that were being sold here, they came within the Contemplation of section 33, and therefore, his lordship said that there was no need for them to make the application which they did via inherent jurisdiction. This result could be achieved and through that method and therefore will be a disproportionate use after local authorities, time resources, and then for the court to utilize the inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. Where the fact this outcome could be achieved as a result of which had every reported case had been such, that the court had authorized vaccinations, any event. So because of that, because of this re t case which was conflicting them with a case of sl the only proper way to deal with this, there was to have to put this to the court of appeal because when he got two more judgments as in this case, both which were high court level from the division of the High court level. The only way was to put the court appeal for them then to determine and that's exactly what happened. So in fact the case then the matter was then referred to on a point of law to the court to appeal. And a quarter per looked At this in the case of we H.A. parental responsibility of 2020. And therefore like say, given the conflict between the two high court decisions matter what was then referred to the court appeal, they undertook a very comprehensive view of the this particular area itself. And in fact, the Court of Appeal came up with this view. They took the view that in fact in circumstances such as this, they would very much side with the view of Mr Justice Hayden and VT sort of Court of appeal stated that when it came to vaccinations uh with all their not compulsive England Wales scientific evidence now shows that it is generally in the best interests of otherwise healthy Children to be vaccinated. So that was the view that was obviously emphasized by the scientific evidence as we have at this stage. And therefore a current medical view was that routine vaccination of infants was in their best interests and not only those Children, but also for public good. And of course, therefore did take the view That the approach in VT was the appropriate one. Therefore, the administration of routine medical examination, medical interventions by world vaccinations, immunizations did come within Section 33 Subsection for Your Children Act and therefore for that. On that basis, the local authority could utilize their Parisian. Another, of course, I would suggest it's still very important to make sure that parents of course are notified the informed they remember, retain their parents responsibility. So it's very important that parents are told of course of the local authorities intention to involve the inherent jurisdiction. So this way, of course of the parent doesn't wish for the local authority to be able to do that. And the application by the parents should then be made to the court that may be seeking, for example, for discharge of the care order, discharge of an interim care order. There may be applying for a a prohibitory injunction prohibiting the local authorities from carrying out their steps. But of course, as you can imagine, that's not going to be an apple easy application to them persuade the court to grant in the circumstances that's then brought me on to the more recent situation, which is how does this sentence with the position with the covid vaccination. And as you know, of course, since the onset of the pandemic from the early part of 2020, we've had number of issues surrounding gender use of vaccinations. And one of the first cases on this Was a case of M&H private law. Vaccination is 2020 decision. This was handed down on 15 December Bye. Uh the court surrounding the issue of vaccinations in this case therefore is handed down just literally a few weeks after the astrazeneca vaccine became available in the in the UK. So, as you know, all around the world, scientists were looking for a vaccine as speedily and quickly as possible given obviously the tragic an ongoing devastation that this virus has and continues to cause across the world across the globe in so many ways. And there was then the early Vaccines which then became available around early December 2020. But this particular case wasn't about covid. This in fact, was an application surrounding an application by the father whereby he was seeking to get sick in order for the mmr vaccination. Mom's needles on rubella vaccination to be given to his Children where the mother opposed the mother opposed largely. She did a lot of research on the internet. She found a lot of literature from overseas. And her argument was that the mmr vaccination should not be given to their Children on the basis that she was convinced that there was a link between the mmr vaccination and had Children potentially becoming autistic. So on that basis she opposed and that's where medical evidence was adduced. And the court ultimately approved the vaccine on the basis it was routine for otherwise healthy Children. And all the previous case law or the previous guidance on this made it very clear that it was in the Children's best interest to allow this. But interestingly, because the matter was before the chord, his lordship was also being asked by parents to give a view in so far as a position with the covid vaccination. And that's because the parents were informed the court that of course in the future Because there was now this vaccine that was available for Colvin in December 2020. In the future travel may be permitted. You might remember that we had those severe restrictions. We travel both into an outside of UKK and therefore it may be that travel for Children did become available in the near future. And there may be a need for vaccination sort of parents wanted the judge to then give a view as to whether to allow the covid vaccination for their Children in those circumstances where it may be a requirement for them and his lordship said this. His lordship of paragraph 52 said this. He said that it's very difficult to foresee a case in which your vaccination approved for use in Children. Clean vaccinations against the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 would not be endorsed by the court as being in a child's best interests. Absence of credible development in medical science or peer reviewed research indicating significant concerns for the safety of the vaccine and Willis evidence medical contradiction specific to them. So you can see here putting it simply, the court vamos took the view that it will be difficult To foresee a situation where if you've got a vaccine against COVID-19 for Children which is regarded as being in the Children's best interests and absence. Any medical research guidance otherwise, which shows a significant concern for safety. Ah It would be difficult for the court not to endorse it. Now, that was interesting because that was Certainly uh 15 December. That was literally a few weeks after this vaccine became available here we are now looking at this position in october 20 21. So, some 10 months later. And of course, we now know that uh there's various vaccines which are available. There are of course, side effects. Nobody really quite knows the full impact of these. It will only be months years to come to see what the full Impact of the vaccines are. one things, I'm sure un controversial and that is the vaccines have made a massive, massive difference in terms of reducing at the significant desk that sadly We were having in 2020 and it's led to a significant reduction in the number of deaths across the globe. As you know, the vaccines have now also been permitted for between 16 to 18 year olds a few months ago and recently As of September 2021. As you know, the vaccine rollout is now also available for Children between 12 2 15 now and many of you who will be parents will know that those of you who do have Children between the age, either your child's school or through the NHS you will have received a letter really informing you that tell your child in most cases is entitled to the vaccination. And that's where I would suggest. We no doubt will get issues over this because we're about to get it very soon. I would have thought a situation where there's going to be a conflict there. So, say the child is Say 12 years of age and let's say he's not competent Gillick competent to make that decision as to whether they should be having the the vaccine or let's say the mother seeks for the childhood of vaccine. But the father doesn't, that could result in a specific issue applications and no doubt we may well be getting that that argument advanced before the court in the not too distance future. We can see the position with they use something having jurisdiction when it comes to vaccinations in that regard. And also particularly The use of section 33 subsection three of the Children. So what I would suggest just to finish on this topic, as if say the local authority has got a child in their care under an icy or care order and they seek for a child to have a vaccination immunization which is non routine. That I would suggest that the advice I will be giving is in those circumstances. One should be looking to seek to involved in having jurisdiction of the High Court on the basis that leave is required that cannot be achieved to any other means. And secondly, that by not having that vaccination that child is likely to suffer significant harm. So those are some of the arguments that would need to be advanced. Let's then look at some of the other matters relating to the use aboard ship in public Children or cases. And I wanted to mention the use of inherent jurisdiction on matters relating to nationality, for Example. So it's the case of re y Children care changing nationalities, 2020 decision. And that issue here, was this whether the local authority has got the stash three power to take steps to change the nationality of a child in its care against the wishes of the parents or whether it needs to seek court approval. First, that's really the question and the Children here were age 9 11. There were Indian nationals born in the U. K. And that's where the issue of nationality therefore came to play. These Children were made subject placement orders under section 20 One of the adoption Children at 2000 and two, the search for adoptive parents suddenly had not been successful and a local authority later therefore apply to discharge to evolve the placement orders and the parents sought to discharge the care orders with muted and having the Children returned. As you know if a placement orders revolted and the care orders reinstated and that's where the parents were then seeking to discharge the care orders under Section 39 of the Act, so as to then have the parent responsibility removed from our parents from the local authority rather than for the parents who have the church Children back into their care. Cool, did discharge replacement orders but refused to discharge the placement orders? And the plan for the Children remained one of long term foster care under your species of the care order. And it was really doing these proceedings that the local authority also raised the issue of citizenship, sort of Local authorities stated they would see course or to secure the Children immigration status by making applications for british citizenship. The effect of that would be then to allow them to acquire british citizenship and that would remove the the indian nationality. And this is where the application was then being sought for that. And the court did take the view that for the protection of the rights of Children under hold the parental responsibility. Certain decisions are of such magnitude that they should not be determined by local authority without all those would prevent responsibility having an opportunity to express their views and consenting of appropriate. And if not as part of the court making decision making process and it would be a disproportionate right to interfere with the right to family members, turn to have a significant say in relation to this matter. So the question was, could the local authority in the Exercise of section 33 Subsection three, other Children decide on the issues surrounding nationality for this child. And of course, in fact on the facts. Said, no, they're set in cases of nationality. The issues of such magnitude that this cannot be resolved by the local authority, acting reliance upon its general statutory powers under Section 33 Subsection three. And the absence of parental consent in these circumstances, court to take the view that there would be a need for decision of the High Court Vied and have jurisdiction. And this is whether the issue arises within or outside proceedings. So even if you're outside proceedings and the child, for example, is accommodated voluntarily and local authorities and for example, wish to change that child's nationality. For example, then that's where they should be inherent jurisdiction freestanding application made. If you're in proceedings and of course you can then be making that within the ceilings but it would have to be to the High court or a judge of the A Section nine Judge as I mentioned earlier. So the court did say that the Children would clearly benefit from the position being regularized from being able to travel in and out of the country and obviously therefore having the benefit of the british nationality when it came to school trips, for example, holidays and so forth. But the characterization of a change of citizen was the court said as being akin to routine vaccination was misplaced. You can't put it in the same situation as what we've been discussing previously in terms of the exercise of the local authorities provision under Section 33 Subsection three of the Children Act. So it's important to bear that in mind in that regard. So, a changing child citizen ship in that regard was seen as a momentous step with profound uh and enduring consequences that therefore did require the most careful Consideration. So section 33 subsection three other Children did not entitle the local authority, apply for British citizenship for these two Children. A face of parental opposition where that would then lead to the loss of the existing indian nationality. One had to apply to the High court for determination on that. Okay, now warship has also been used in other situations as well. So we're getting the public law context I wanted to pick up on this case. We see this 2016 court of Appeal decision and this is a case where by the local authority have had already been involved with the mother who had mental health difficulties and she gave birth to her two Children who were twins, a boy and a girl. And the mother indicated that she wished to name her Children. The done the names of cyanide, her daughter, she wanted to call her daughter cyanide and her son, the word preacher and the local authorities sought to involve inherent jurisdiction or high court to achieve an actor which ordinarily they would not be able to do a nice we need to seek effectively a prohibitory order prohibiting the mother from being able to register Children's names with these names and the thinking behind that was this. The court, the court were told that by registering her daughter's name with the name sign I'd, that would cause a child significant harm going forward. Psychological emotional harm, because the child would be named after a poison that had been used and had been used, particularly uh in for example, the situation with the world War, for example, and that could potentially cause a child's significant emotional psychological harm. In terms of wider mother decides to give that child that name. What the consequences I had a child perceived that child and the mother perceived that child going forward and as for a name, preacher, given that didn't of course have the same inherent MS to the child in those circumstances. The problem is in the future that child who was going to be given the name preacher may then try and understand why that name was given. May then identify that. In fact the sister's name was initially to be cyanide and potentially then the sister and the brother could then find out what the mother's original intention was. So therefore the court took the view that to ensure the emotional psychological welfare, both Children, not just now, but also the future to eliminate and reduce the risk of emotional psychological harm. The only right and proper way to do that was to prevent the mother from being able to register the Children names with these names and therefore that's exactly what was done. So it's quite an unusual step because as you know, local authorities cannot often and often will not be playing any role in so far as a position with the child's name in that regard. But here they were able to get the order prohibiting the use of the registration of these names on the Children's birth certificate. Okay, so well done for community end of this second session. So you can see I've spent a fair bit of time then going through some of the other elements surrounding worship, particularly in public Children or cases in the next session and what I'm going to be doing is I'm going to be looking at warship as it has been used in other areas related to Children proceedings in particular will be looking at the use of CSC charge, Sexual exploitation orders will be looking at our store orders, been looking at prohibitory orders in that regard, and then we'll spend some time there after looking at moving towards the issues surrounding deprivation of liberty before we then move on to the final session. Can I thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope this has been a useful session for you so far. And I speak to you soon. Thank you very much. Bye for now.
Webinar
Slides
3062 Users
171 Courses
157 Reviews
