Human Rights

In Re F (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Contact) (TLR 22 June FD)

Wall J said he would be disappointed if the Convention were to be routinely paraded before the court as a make-weight ground of appeal, or if there were in every case an extensive citation of authorities from the ECtHR, particularly where reliance was placed on cases pre-dating the Act. A care order had been made based on a care plan for adoption, the mother appealed against an order under s34 of the Children Act 1989 authorising the local authority to refuse contact. She complained under article 6 of the Convention that a decision by the local authority to terminate contact would be an administrative one against which she would have no meaningful remedy. In dismissing the appeal Sir Nicholas said: ‘Although the Children Act has to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with human rights, it was for the English courts applying English criteria of fairness and justice to decide whether those rights had been breached. Here the justices had applied the provisions of the Children Act to the facts of the case as they were bound to do. Having done so, they used the Human Rights Act, although not yet in force, and articles 6 and 8 of the Convention as cross-checks to ensure what they had done was fair and necessary in the interests of the children and had decided correctly that they had to balance the respective rights of the mother and the children to reach a conclusion that was in the children’s best interests.