CHILDREN — Orders with respect to children — Supervision order — Judge making 3 year supervision order — Whether valid — Children Act 1989, s 31, Sch 3, para 6

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v T [2008] EWCA Civ 199; [2008] WLR (D) 91

CA: Thorpe, Arden and Hughes LJJ: 19 March 2008

A supervision order made pursuant to s 31 of and para 6 of Sch 3 to the Children Act 1989 had an initial life of 12 months and could be extended for a further two years maximum.

The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an appeal brought by a father against the decision of Judge Peter Hunt in the Leeds County Court on 31 October 2007 when he granted a supervision order of three years in the course of public law proceedings brought by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council concerning the future of his daughter, born on 3 February 2005.

The capacity of the child’s parents to provide good enough parenting was not in question. The risks related to the maternal grandmother’s partner who had a long criminal record for sexual offences and it was not disputed that he was and was likely to remain a danger.

THORPE LJ said that the judge’s pragmatic decision to impose a supervision order for the maximum overall life which the statute allowed was extremely sensible. Para 6 of Sch 3 to the 1989 Act was the crucial statutory provision. Its lack of comprehensive clarity and the absence of any previous authority had created this appeal. The argument was simple. Para 6(1) provided that a “supervision order shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which it was made.” Sub-para 3 permitted the court to extend, but by sub-para 4 prohibited extension “beyond the period of 3 years” Miss Hamilton relied on two strong supports for her approach. The first was the statutory provisions which para 6 replaced, found in s 17 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. That provided that a supervision order ceased to have effect on the expiration of three years or shorter period if it was specified. She relied secondly on In re A (Supervision Order: Extension) [1995] 1 FLR 335. Mr Hayden of course made much of the good sense of the judge’s approach and the need to construe any statutory ambiguity to enable judges to make sensible orders. However, in his Lordship’s judgment Miss Hamilton’s submissions were to be preferred. His Lordship recognised that her construction did not banish all difficulties but Mr Hayden’s solution amounted to an impermissible circumvention of the plain language of para 6(1).

ARDEN and HUGHES LJJ agreed.

Appearances: Eleanor Hamilton QC and Stephen Switalski (John Wood Parnership Solicitors, Wakefield) for the father; Anthony Hayden QC (Wakefield MDC and Michael George & Co, Dewsbury) for the district council and the child’s guardian.

Reported by: Geraldine Fainer, barrister