- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-B v B (A Minor) (Residence Order) (1992)
Core Principle
A person responsible for the care of a child may be able to give valid consent for medical treatment.
Facts of the Case
Parties: Grandmother (applicant) vs. Child's Mother
Subject: 11-year-old granddaughter
Application: Grandmother applied for a residence order.
Initial Court Decision (Justices): Refused the residence order under s 1(5) of the Children Act 1989.
Reasoning: It wasn't demonstrably better for the child than having no order at all because:
The child already lived permanently with the grandmother.
There was little risk of the mother removing the child.
Appeal: Grandmother appealed the decision.
High Court Decision
Outcome: Allowed the appeal (reversed the justices' decision).
Reasoning: While the justices correctly applied s 1(5), new grounds warranted a residence order:
Grandmother lacked parental responsibility:
The education authority questioned her authority.
Potential issues with consent to medical treatment existed.
Child's anxiety: The child was worried about her future stability.
Addressing Consent Concerns: Johnson J noted s 3(5) of the Children Act 1989 but recognized that professionals might be hesitant to rely on the grandmother's authority without a formal order granting parental responsibility.
Impact of Residence Order: Granting the residence order would give parental responsibility to the grandmother, providing certainty and security for the child.
Key Legislation
Children Act 1989, Section 1(5): A court should only make an order if doing so is better for the child than making no order.
Children Act 1989, Section 3(5): A person with care of a child (but without parental responsibility) can do what is "reasonable" to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
Implications and Commentary
Practical Considerations: Even though s 3(5) seems to grant authority for a caregiver to act, in practice, medical professionals and educational institutions may be reluctant to fully recognize that authority without a formal order granting parental responsibility.
Security and Stability: Residence orders, while seemingly unnecessary when a child already lives with a caregiver, can provide crucial legal clarity and a sense of security for the child, especially concerning medical decisions and interactions with institutions.
Core Principle
A person responsible for the care of a child may be able to give valid consent for medical treatment.
Facts of the Case
Parties: Grandmother (applicant) vs. Child's Mother
Subject: 11-year-old granddaughter
Application: Grandmother applied for a residence order.
Initial Court Decision (Justices): Refused the residence order under s 1(5) of the Children Act 1989.
Reasoning: It wasn't demonstrably better for the child than having no order at all because:
The child already lived permanently with the grandmother.
There was little risk of the mother removing the child.
Appeal: Grandmother appealed the decision.
High Court Decision
Outcome: Allowed the appeal (reversed the justices' decision).
Reasoning: While the justices correctly applied s 1(5), new grounds warranted a residence order:
Grandmother lacked parental responsibility:
The education authority questioned her authority.
Potential issues with consent to medical treatment existed.
Child's anxiety: The child was worried about her future stability.
Addressing Consent Concerns: Johnson J noted s 3(5) of the Children Act 1989 but recognized that professionals might be hesitant to rely on the grandmother's authority without a formal order granting parental responsibility.
Impact of Residence Order: Granting the residence order would give parental responsibility to the grandmother, providing certainty and security for the child.
Key Legislation
Children Act 1989, Section 1(5): A court should only make an order if doing so is better for the child than making no order.
Children Act 1989, Section 3(5): A person with care of a child (but without parental responsibility) can do what is "reasonable" to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
Implications and Commentary
Practical Considerations: Even though s 3(5) seems to grant authority for a caregiver to act, in practice, medical professionals and educational institutions may be reluctant to fully recognize that authority without a formal order granting parental responsibility.
Security and Stability: Residence orders, while seemingly unnecessary when a child already lives with a caregiver, can provide crucial legal clarity and a sense of security for the child, especially concerning medical decisions and interactions with institutions.
0 Comments