Does anyone have the full judgement for

[staffydog]

Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has or can get a copy of the full judgement for these please?


Re R (A minor) CA (Civ Div) 6 April 1993 [Dec 1993] fam Law 722

and

W (a minor) (1982) 126 Sol Jo 725 CA ; 13 Fam Law 47

Many thanks

[leclerc]

Re: Does anyone have the full judgement for

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Is the above case relevant? It is about section 8 of the Children's Act 1989

[leclerc]

Re: Does anyone have the full judgement for

I am not sure on the other one you are seeking to be honest.......

[staffydog]

Re: Does anyone have the full judgement for

Thanks leclerc, I appreciate you looking, I'm still struggling, I'll have another look at the one in your link but I don't think it is the one I'm after.

I'm looking for case law that states that a Cafcass S7 report's recommendations are of no use if the child has not been seen, either with both, one or even none of the parents.

All I have to go on is;

Re R (A minor) CA (Civ Div) 6 April 1993 [Dec 1993] fam Law 722
Duty to see all the relevant parties and particularly duty to see the party with the child who is asking for the application...failure makes recommendation meaningless.


“W (a minor) (1982) 126 Sol Jo 725 CA ; 13 Fam Law 47

First let me translate some of that. There are two publications where you can find reference to this judgement. The first is in Solicitors Journals (hence Sol Jo - the CA stands for Court of Appeal). The second is Volume 13 of Family Law on page 47. This case was heard by Cumming-Bruce LJ and Butler-Sloss J, who is now President of the Family Division. Cumming-Bruce said that if a welfare officer's report was to be of any assistance it was of the utmost importance that the officer saw the child in both parents homes and observe their relationship with each parent. Butler-Sloss J delivered an agreeing judgement.”

“Re R (A Minor) (Court Welfare Report) 5 April 1993 CA

Family Law December 1993
Dame Butler Sloss

In my view a Welfare Officer has the duty to see all the relevant parties and particularly has the duty to see the party with the child who is asking for the application. Failure to see one of two parties in a residence application or even contact makes the report of far less value to the court, but makes the recommendation meaningless. When the judge says the report was fatally flawed, he means her observations were helpful but that the conclusion was completely useless”

[leclerc]

Re: Does anyone have the full judgement for

I am going to ask someone who might know the case law or otherwise I will suggest one other place that you might want to look at...

[staffydog]

Re: Does anyone have the full judgement for

Many thanks

[Emerald]

Re: Does anyone have the full judgement for

I'm not sure about the case law but most judges get pretty croos if a report on recommendation for children has been written on old records/parents hearsay and the children have not been directly observed with the adults. However having said that CAFCASS in the last year or so in private proceedings have adopted a new method of working where the FCA's are now called the Early Intervention Team and they make all their enquiries by phone and then write a report based on this. These new teams are basically office based social workers who aare expected to produce a high turnover of reports to the courts in 16 weeks or less to reduce caseloads - so reading between the lines this may be what you are experiencing.