Source: https://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/category/childs-views/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:56:36+00:00

Document:
This is an email to Poppy who wants help on an appeal. Her new lawyer has assessed Poppy’s understanding as sufficient to give instructions and to be represented on where she should live.
The text could be used for any child where it is necessary to explain Gillick to the child.
Why did the judge’s tell Mrs Gillick: your daughters can go on the pill without telling you? Why can her daughters talk to a doctor without Mrs G knowing? Can you talk to a lawyer about your case without your parent’s agreement? And why should mature children, like you, be listened to by judges where your parents are in court after separation?
Mr and Mrs Gillick had five daughters all under sixteen (in law, in UK, anyone under 18 is a ‘child’). She said none of the daughters should be able to have access to contraceptive advice – ie to go on the pill – without her parents’ knowing about it. The House of Lords (the UK’s most senior court) said she was wrong.
The health authorities – this was December 1980 – said a doctor can prescribe the pill without parents knowing. Mrs Gillick disagreed. She was the mother of five daughters under 16. She objected to the guidance. There was no suggestion that her daughters were asking for the pill: she objected as a parent.
The underlying principle of the law … is that parental right yields to the child’s right to make his own decisions when he reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision….
Lord Scarman was saying: parents (and judges) must back off as a child gets older. As their ‘understanding and intelligence’ increases everyone – including parents and judges – must have more and more respect for these views.
‘Understanding’: what is to be understood?
Understanding also depends on what we are talking about: understanding of what you want to eat (ie not what you should eat) is well-developed for a very young child. Tiny children know what they don’t like. Lots of small children don’t like broccoli or cabbage. On the other hand an ‘understanding’ of physics may still be limited, even when you are much older (I can’t claim to have much of an ‘understanding’ of physics; but get me on history, and I’m much better).
Gillick applies not just to doctors and broccoli. It applies also when you are involved in court proceedings where your parents have separated. There are all sorts of English laws which say that a child’s views must be listened to by judges.
In a court case between parents about where a child should live (‘custody’ or ‘residence’), if a child is old enough to say what they think (express ‘a view’) they should be listened to. If they want to be listened to, this could be through a welfare officer or a lawyer (ie a solicitor).
The judge may not agree with what the child wants. That is a different question. But the judge must – for that is the law in England – listen to what a child has to say.
It is clear that our procedural law deals with it in a muddled way; and, I believe, in a way which is not fair to older children. All children involved in care (‘public law’) proceedings (whatever their age) are automatically made parties (in what are called ‘specified proceedings’: Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) s 41(6)). This does mean their views will be put before the court since they will be represented by a children’s guardian who must represent their ‘best interests’ not necessarily what they want. The muddle this can create can be seen in Re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Child’s Representation) Practice Note  EWCA Civ 1051,  1 WLR 1027 where, I think (see preface to my Children’s Views and Evidence by David Burrows, Bloomsbury Professional, 2017 https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/childrens-views-and-evidence-9781526503176/) even Black LJ (now Lady Black) got the law wrong.
It is certainly the case that the term ‘children’s guardian’ has two meanings (see definition under Family Procedure Rules 2010 r 2.3(1)), as between care proceedings (already mentioned) and under FPR 2010 r 16.4 where the children’s guardian acts in the same way as a ‘litigation friend’ in civil proceedings: ie pursuing a case on instructions form or otherwise in the interests the child. If lawyers of the calibre of Lady Black can get it wrong what hope the unrepresented child whose future is being decided by the court?
It must please be recalled by any judge who considers joining a child, that based only on the child’s own means, they will be entitled to legal aid (Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 Sch 1 para 15) where they are a party. There will be cases where the court will be helped by at least one party having representation. Quite legitimately there are cases which would fall into this category which now are being overlooked by the family courts.
Parents and children in care (‘specified’) proceedings have legal aid (regardless of means or the merit of their case); but that is not directly under consideration here.
The extent to which courts in non-care proceedings take into account children’s views is an extensive subject. Following on from my ‘hearing the child’ post I thought I would briefly analyse the private cases (ie not ‘specified proceedings’) reported over the past few months (September till now) and to see where children’s views appear to have been taken into account. In Re D (A Child) (International Recognition)  EWCA Civ 12,  1 WLR 2469,  2 FLR 347 (mentioning in the last post) the Court of Appeal felt that a child of seven, David, should have been given the opportunity – that is, if he wanted it – to be heard; so I have treated seven as the lower age for ‘age and maturity’. Cases which do not include a 7+ year old child have been excluded. I have added a couple of rogue cases – judicial review and Herefordshire – at the end where views may be appropriate.
I can only go on what is reported, so if I am wrong – one way or the other – about a child being heard, I can only apologise. I have tended to assume if they are not joined as parties that court is unlikely to hear views; but I realise that may be unfair to the judges. I have merely listed the cases, one-by-one and not tried to make any deductions from the modest sample.
I suspect, however, that where children are joined they may not necessarily have their views expressed to the court or be told they can see the judge if they want to; but that will not necessarily be clear from the report.
The private law (non-care) cases over the past seven months divide roughly equally into those where 7+ year old children are joined as parties; and those where they were not joined.
The entire area of a child’s Article 12 UNCRC right to participation in proceedings concerning them is one that continues to evolve, Re W (A Child) [above], Black LJ at  and Re F (Children) EWCA Civ 546, Sir James Munby P at .
FE v MR & Ors  EWHC 2298 (Fam) (14 September 2017), Baker J – The children were A (born 14 October 2003) and J born 1 December 2006). The case concerned the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 on jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement of family court orders (Brussels IIA) Art 15, which enables the court of a member state (a requesting court) to request another to transfer a case from another member state’s court to the requesting court () in exceptional circumstances and where the requesting court ‘would be better placed to hear the case’ (Art 15.1).
A was joined by Holman J in November 2016 and her children’s guardian was to aske J if he wanted to be joined. He was subsequently joined. Both children had full access to an ability for their views to be expressed.
N v J (Power to Set Aside Return Order)  EWHC 2752 (Fam) (3 November 2017), MacDonald J – The High Court has jurisdiction (under Family Procedure Rules 2010 r 4.1(6)) to set aside its own orders (ie other than on appeal: Senior Courts Act 1981 s 17) where there has been a material change of circumstances and where to do so ‘goes to the welfare of the child (); though in this case the judge refused to exercise his discretion to set aside.
The children G, aged 14, and H, aged 11 were (1) respondents to proceedings under the CA 1989 commenced by their father, and applicants in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction through their children’s guardian. In the inherent jurisdiction proceedings the mother – with whom the children were living in the US – unsuccessfully asked the judge to set aside a return order.
R (J and L) v London Borough of Hillingdon  EWHC 3411 (Admin) (21 December 2017), Nicklin J is mentioned merely to record that the judicial review application made here for an eight-year old was made in the joint names of him and his mother, J is a single mother with a disabled 8 year old son. The Administrative Court dealt with an application to determine whether L was a child in need under Children Act 1989 s 17 and in relation to safeguarding for him under Children Act 2004 s 11 and Working Together, 2015. The local authority had failed to provide this response and must do so.
Re J (Children)  EWCA Civ 115 (6 February 2018) – A married couple with three children (represented by NYAS; and who said they did not want to see their father) were involved in non-molestation order and contact proceedings. The court delayed for over a year in dealing with contact; but made no findings on any of the allegations and counter-allegations of abuse. A father’s appeal that the non-molestation order was allowed to run without determination of facts, and no findings of fact had been made was allowed. But too late: the court could not override the children’s wishes.
This case shows a series of delayed and poor case management. The children’s stated wish not to see their father does not seem to have been seriously tested by the courts. The father’s appeal was partly allowed, but no order made largely because of the delays. Although the children’s views were taken into account, they do not seem to have seen any of the judges.
P v C & Ors  EWHC 693 (Fam) (28 March 2018), Russell J – A claim of a father (P) (Swedish and living in Sweden) for his children to live with him. C had appeared to alienate the children, who were both represented (aged 14 and 12), but seemed to have relented (though still opposed P’s application, as did the children). In an earlier judgment Russell J found significant harm, and on the Guardian’s recommendation made a supervision order, without any application by the local authority and over the social worker’s recommendation for a family assistance order.
Re LG (Re-opening of Fact-finding)  EWHC 2626 (Fam) (3 October 2017), Baker J concerned a contested hearing of a contact application dealt with by justices, and sought to be renewed by the mother before a circuit judge following convictions of the father affecting her and her children. The children included a child of the family aged 7 (born on 9 March 2010). On appeal Baker J sent the mother’s application to another judge. In principle the child should be asked for her views – and ‘opportunity to be heard’. It is unlikely she will have been asked what she feels about contact and whether she will want to talk to the re-hearing judge – where magistrates’ had doubted the credibility of the mother, it was wrong for the judge hearing a child arrangements order application by the father substantially to ignore his later criminal conviction.
Egeneonu v Egeneonu  EWHC 2451 (Fam) (30 August 2017), MacDonald J – A mother applied for committal for breach of orders in wardship by the respondent father (F) of their three children (now aged 15, 12 and 10, and retained by him in Nigeria for over 4 years). F applied to adjourn the committal (heard as Egeneonu v Egeneonu  EWHC 2336 (Fam) (below)) to instruct yet further solicitors. On a committal application it was fundamental that a party – the father, in this case – be represented (, especially (c); and (b)). Unless there was evidence of extreme unreasonable behaviour in his further change of representation or any other reason the case should be adjourned ().
In their absence, not surprisingly, the children seem not to have been join joined.
Re T (A Child)  EWCA Civ 1889 (23 November 2017) was a local authority non-molestation order under Family Law Act 1996 Pt 4, for a child (aged 10) for her protection whilst with foster carers, and against her mother and cohabitant. She does not appear to have been formally a party in the Court of Appeal. These are not specified proceedings. The appeal established that it is beyond doubt that a local authority can apply for a non-molestation. Perhaps it can be assumed that T should not have been involved in the proceedings; and certainly this type of application is not specified (care/public law) proceedings under CA 1989 s 41.
Re M (Children)  EWCA Civ 2164 (20 December 2017) – The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of a transgender father from an ultra-orthodox Jewish community so, now as a woman, she could pursue contact with her children, who still lived with their mother in the orthodox community. The children are five children, whose ages now range from 13 to 3. The case was sent back to the Family Court for reconsideration by a different High Court judge. The children’s views were taken into account by the judge (Peter Jackson J); but neither before him or in the Court of Appeal was there any formal offer made to the children to speak to the judge – if they wanted to express a view in terms of the EU Charter or UN Convention.
A v B  EWHC 328 (Fam) (6 February 2018), Theis J – was a mother’s appeal against a recorder’s refusal to allow her to take an 8-year child to Poland. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted to another circuit judge for hearing. Child not joined.
A v R & Anor  EWHC 521 (Fam) (21 March 2018), MacDonald J – A father’s appeal was allowed on the ground that the judge had not properly considered his application for contact to his thirteen year old daughter. She was not joined; and does not appear to have been asked her views. That said, procedurally this case – in which the press reported the parties’ squabbling barristers and the father that they had ‘shouted over each other’ – was undistinguished. It will remain to be seen whether the judge hears the daughter’s views at any future hearing.
Herefordshire Council v AB  EWFC 10 (1 February 2018), Keehan J is included here only to recall that it is not only in court proceedings that a child’s views should be consulted; but also in ‘administrative proceedings’ which would include accommodation under CA 1989 s 20. Keehan J did not formally join either child.
 This judgment concerns two unconnected young people who have been accommodated pursuant to the provisions of The Children Act 1989, section 20 (the 1989 Act) for a very considerable period of time. Their treatment by Herefordshire Council (‘the local authority’) represents two of the most egregious abuses of section 20 accommodation it has yet been my misfortune to encounter as a judge.
 CD was born in 2001. A series of referrals were made to the local authority in respect of his parents’ allegedly abusive relationship in 2005 which led to CD being accommodated by the local authority in October 2009 when he was eight years of age. He was not made the subject of public law care proceedings until September 2017, when he was 16 years of age; a period of eight years, subject to section 20 accommodation.
 On 8 December 2017, I made a special guardianship order in respect of him in favour of his long-term and very dedicated foster carers to whom he affectionately refers as Fossil and Grumpy.
If it is the child’s future which is in issue by whatever public body – courts, local authority, health department (see eg Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA  UKHL 7,  1 AC 112,  1 FLR 224) – then a child is entitled to ‘the opportunity to be heard’ (Art 12.2 (above)); and any child is surely entitled to look to court rules and procedure which is more clear and understandable to the child. Rights are not rights if they cannot be understood by those entitled to them.
UK has agreed to be bound by conventions which guarantee to children a right to express views where the child – ‘who is capable of forming his or her own views’ – is affected by the outcome of any decision-making concerning the child. And of course this will include the outcome of court proceedings about the child. To what extent, however, are English and Welsh judges complying with their duties to hear a child’s views?
The short answer is: at best falteringly. There are only ‘guidelines’ on the subject for English courts. There is no clear law. Reported cases, even involving older children, suggest that no real attempt is made to elicit their views, still less to join them as parties where their own future is in issue (as was the case for example with Kate below). For children the law on their views and taking part in proceedings is lame.
So to what extent are family courts taking account of children’s views? If judges are formally taking them into account it is difficult to deduce this from individual cases. Certainly there is no evidence in the rules for children proceedings – mostly in Family Procedure Rules 2010 Pt 16 – that children are being ‘provided the opportunity to be heard… in a manner consistent with court rules’.
That if a child wants to express a view this be set up in rules.
In our family courts rules the first element of these two – without which the second is only haphazardly applied – just is not there. At most the child – who is almost certainly not told about it – has the constitutionally lame Guidelines on Judges Meeting Children who are subject to Family Proceedings April 2010  2 FLR 1872 – . These guidelines are not law; though they have been approved by judges at high level. Their ‘purpose’, it is said, is ‘to encourage judges to enable children to feel more involved in proceedings’ which affect them and to ensure judges have understood their wishes and feelings. There is no positive ‘they shall in particular’ have views heard in the Guidelines.
Certainly there is nothing beyond Children Act 1989 s 10(8) (enables a child to ask if he or she can make an application in proceedings: not the same thing at all) in law which records how English judges should recognise Arts 12 and 24 and formally hear child’s views. Children Act 1989 s 1(3) passively records only that the wishes and feelings of a child is part of a court’s decision-making process. This provision and the Guidelines have been the subject of recent Court of Appeal comment.
It remains the position that, if recent judgments are considered, there is no obvious evidence that the views of a child – by appropriate means – are directly and routinely considered. Still less are there clear cases where children with an interest in the outcome are joined as parties.
In Re KP (Abduction: Child’s Objections)  EWCA Civ 554,  2 FLR 660 the Court of Appeal was concerned with a 13 year-old Maltese girl who was wrongfully brought to the United Kingdom by her mother. When her father applied for her return the girl was seen by the High Court judge for over an hour. The mother appealled against the judge’s order that her daughter – Kate as she was later named; and when she was later joined as a party – should be returned to Malta. They allowed the appeal and ultimately Kate was allowed to remain in England.
 … In like manner nothing that we may say in this judgment should be taken as more than a description of the approach to hearing the voice of a child in such cases that is currently endorsed by judicial authority. Our collective understanding of these matters and how best to ‘hear’ a young person within the court setting, is developing and is still, to an extent, in its infancy. It is not our aim to say anything that may set current practice in concrete or otherwise prevent discussion, thought and the further development of good practice.
In Re D (A Child) (International Recognition)  EWCA Civ 12,  2 FLR 347 Art 24 of the Charter was considered by Ryder LJ in the Court of Appeal. Had a child, David, been given an opportunity to be heard in Romania, where it was sought for him to be returned? The court was concerned with a Romanian court order, and the question of whether this should be enforced in UK where a child was not given ‘an opportunity to be heard’ on parental responsibility (ie in where he was to live). The child (aged 7 when the decision appealled against was made) had not been given this opportunity in Romania, as required by Brussels IIA Art 23(b), so his father could not enforce the order in this country.
The question for the Court of Appeal was how to deal with opportunity to be heard as a ‘fundamental principle of procedure’ in English procedural law. Ryder LJ dealt with this first by setting out ‘general principles’.
 That is rightly an acceptance that the rule of law in England and Wales includes the right of the child to participate in the process that is about him or her. That is the fundamental principle that is reflected in our legislation, our rules and practice directions and our jurisprudence. At its most basic level it involves asking at an early stage in family proceedings whether and how that child is going to be given the opportunity to be heard. The qualification in s 1(3)(a) of the CA 1989 like that in Art 12(1) of the UNCRC 1989 relates to the weight to be put upon a child’s wishes and feelings, not their participation.
So says Ryder LJ, the ‘principle of procedure’ is there; but to what extent is it being applied by judges and magistrates (and how applied by magistrates?) in 2018?
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is to go on European Union ‘exit day’: ie the day that EU withdrawal finally happens and whatever other terms – or not – are negotiated by the politicians. Clause 5(4) of that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill says: ‘(4) The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day’. That means the EU Charter no longer be part of English law once ‘exit day’ has happened.
1 Children… may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
2 In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration….
As I will show, I do not think the statute law which English judges apply goes as far as that; though judge-made law – perhaps, and as explained below – will incorporate the equivalent of Art 24 into English law. Before I move on, however, I must also introduce United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. This is an extensive set of aims for rights of a child to which UK is a signatory; but it is not enforceable in English courts. It does not have the force of law which – while it lasts – the Charter has.
2 For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
Even if it were enforceable in English law, UN Convention does not go as far as the Charter. Most important the views of a child – ‘opportunity to be heard’ – are of use under Art 12 only so far as a country’s ‘procedural rules’ apply. That is a get-out provision for a Government. A country has only to say, we don’t have appropriate ‘procedural rules’; and that can a child having any right to be heard. And – surely a matter of shame for English family lawyers? – it must be said that the English ‘procedural rules’ are sufficiently muddled (see eg Children Act 1989 ss 10(8) and 41 and Family Procedure Rules 2010 Pt 16) and indistinct, that it may be possible to say to a child that, as English law stands, there are no procedural rules by which a child may be heard; or am I being too harsh? That must be reviewed on another occasion.
The question which this article addresses is: how far will the spirit of Art 24 remain part of the common law – ie part of English law and to be applied by English judges – for children and in proceedings about them?
And then Art 24? Children ‘may express their views freely’. Will this passage survive EU withdrawal; and if it does so how is it to be operated more clearly than has been the case up to now? How will children know if it may apply to them; and how may they take advantage of it: in the sense of being able to say to say to someone? As a child, I have a right (by one means or another: see Lady Hale in Re D (Abduction: Rights of Custody)  UKHL 51,  1 FLR 961 at ) to say what I think about all this and to talk to the judge who is to decide my future.
Art 24 was considered by the Court of Appeal in Re D (A Child) (International Recognition)  EWCA Civ 12,  2 FLR 347 Art 24 alongside Children Act 1989 s 1(3)(a) (that in making a decision about a child the court must have in mind the child’s ‘wishes and feelings’ according to their age and understanding). The court was considering the future of a seven year old (David) in the context of Brussels IIA (due to go with EU withdrawal as well). The English court needed to consider whether a Bulgarian return order should be enforced in the UK; and for this a question was, had the Bulgarian court had given David ‘an opportunity to be heard’ (Brussels IIA, Art 23(b)). If they had not, was this ‘in violation of a fundamental principle of procedure’ of the UK?
David had not been given such ‘opportunity’ said Ryder LJ; this was not in accordance with the fundamental procedural principles (s 1(3)(a)) of English courts; so the Bulgarian order would not be enforced here. The Supreme Court gave leave to appeal, but set aside that decision: Re D (A Child) (Supreme Court: Jurisdiction)  UKSC 34,  2 FLR 379,  AC 1117): they had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Brussels IIA. The common law remains as set out Ryder LJ’s judgement (and see discussion of this in ‘Children’s Views and Evidence’, David Burrows, Bloomsbury Professional at Ch 4).
 … the rule of law in England and Wales includes the right of the child to participate in the process that is about him or her. That is the fundamental principle that is reflected in our legislation, our rules and practice directions and our jurisprudence. At its most basic level it involves asking at an early stage in family proceedings whether and how that child is going to be given the opportunity to be heard. The qualification in s 1(3)(a) of the CA 1989…relates to the weight to be put upon a child’s wishes and feelings, not their participation.
And that assertion from Ryder LJ is premised on Art 24. So what happens when Art 24 goes? Ryder LJ’s approach remains the common law, even without underpinning from Art 24. Without the clear line set out by the Court of Appeal English children in family proceedings are left only with the permissive approach suggested by s 1(3)(a) and quasi-legislation (albeit endorsed by Family Division judges) set out in Family Justice Council: Guidelines on Judges Meeting Children who are subject to Family Proceedings April 2010  2 FLR 1872 (prepared after Re D (Abduction: Rights of Custody) (above)). This sets out ‘to encourage judges to enable children to feel more involved in proceedings’ which affect them and to ensure judges have understood their wishes and feelings. As can be seen Art 24 is much stronger – that is, pro-child – than that.
As the source of a right, and as previously set out in Art 24 and as confirmed in Re D, Family Justice Council ‘guidelines’ (even as backed by s 1(3)(a)) are a pallid imitation. As a document offered by English law to guarantee my rights if I were a child affected, I would feel insecure; especially if I was watching the EU Charter boat (with Art 24 aboard) sailing back across the Channel. And I would not be confident that – even as far as it goes – the ‘guidelines’ provide the ‘procedural law’ required by UN Convention Art 12.2.
If the common law is not thought to be as expressed by Ryder LJ, I would urge the Ministry of Justice to put the matter beyond doubt, before exit day for the sake of children. Most of the drafting has been done: it’s there in Art 24.
And it needs primary legislation. Rules or a practice direction are not enough. Or could it be set out as an early an early example of a Henry VIII power with the new Minister of Justice performing the role of the Tudor monarch….

References: EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 Art 15
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 UKHL 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 Art 24
 Art 23
 Art 12
 Art 24
 Art 12
 Art 24
 Art 24
 UKHL 

Art 24
 EWCA 
 Art 24
 Art 23
 UKSC 
 Art 24
 Art 24
 Art 24
 Art 24
 Art 24
 Art 24
 Art 12
 Art 24