[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> J (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1845 (20 December 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1845.html Cite as: [2006] EWCA Civ 1845

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM RHYL COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUGHES)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		20th December 2006

1. This is an application by Mr and Mrs J for permission to appeal against an order made by HHJ Hughes sitting in the Llangefni County Court on 3 August 2006. The case concerns Mr and Mrs J's two children: C, born on the 15 May 2005, and L, born on the 4 May 2006. The order made by the judge was a care order in relation to both children and the plan in relation to both was that they should be placed for adoption outside the family.
2. The case was listed for today, following notification to the parents by letter from the civil appeals office dated 4 December 2006. The parents do not appear and I have been told that they have written a letter to the court explaining their inability to fund the journey from Conway to London and that they therefore will not be appearing. In these circumstances it is manifestly unsatisfactory to have a case relating to children outstanding and I have decided, having myself read the papers, that I will deal with the matter today. I will direct a transcript at public expense and direct that the transcript be sent to Mr and Mrs J.
3. The position is that Mr and Mrs J have a number of other children and there have in the past been care proceedings relating to those children. It is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment for me to identify them or, indeed, to go into any details of the proceedings. Suffice it to say that on the 29 November 2000 the Cheshire County Council, in care proceedings relating to seven children, produced a document entitled "Agreed Threshold Criteria" which contains a catalogue of reasons why those children had suffered significant harm. It is, I think, not necessary for me to go into those proceedings in any detail. There was an overwhelming abundance of evidence which made it absolutely clear that Mr and Mrs J were not in a position to care for those children or, indeed, for any children. There has been produced helpfully a bundle entitled "Witness Mini-bundle Re: Previous Proceedings", and I have also been provided with no less than six files of documents relating to the previous proceedings.
4. As I say, the evidence in those proceedings was overwhelming and it was inevitable that care proceedings in relation to those children should be made. Although at the time of those proceedings it seemed as if Mr and Mrs J had separated, they were in fact reconciled and had the two children who are the subject of the current proceedings. They did not announce to anybody that C had been born, and it was only later when the health visitor alerted the local authority that the local authority became aware of her existence. Care proceedings followed. She was removed from her parents' care and L was removed from his parents' care shortly after his birth.
5. The care proceedings came before the judge and resulted in the judgment dated 3 August 2006. It is a careful judgment by the judge which refers to the previous proceedings and makes it clear that there has been no progress whatsoever in relation to Mr and Mrs J's parenting capacity and that accordingly, it is not possible for these two children to be placed with them. The judge said in terms that he was driven to the inevitable conclusion that he had to make care orders in favour of the local authority. It was equally obvious, in his view, that the children would need to be placed for adoption.
6. In these circumstances any application for permission to appeal is, in my judgment, completely hopeless. There is a letter from Mr J on the file which pleads with the court to give the parents another chance for them to be assessed properly and to make amends for the mistakes they have made in the past in relation to child care. The documentation demonstrates, in my view, overwhelmingly that the interests of these two children require care orders to be made and for them to be adopted. The function of care proceedings is not, I fear, to give parents another chance but to look to the welfare of children who have suffered or who are likely to suffer significant harm. On the history of this case there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the judge was absolutely correct to find the threshold criteria satisfied on the basis of likelihood of significant harm, and to make care orders with a view to adoption.
7. In these circumstances, the application for permission stands absolutely no prospect of success whatsoever and will therefore be refused.

Order: Application refused.