S (Children), Re

Where parents disagree about a child’s education, the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration under the Children Act 1989. If both proposed forms of education satisfy the broad requirement of being efficient under the Education Act, that requirement does not determine which school the child should attend. The court must choose by reference to welfare. Parental religious or philosophical convictions protected by Article 2 of the First Protocol, and family-life rights under Article 8, must be considered but do not resolve a conflict between parents. An appellate court should not interfere with a careful welfare decision plainly open on the evidence merely because fuller statutory or human-rights submissions might have been made.

Proceedings under the Children Act 1989 concerned a parental dispute about the schooling of a 13-year-old boy. The Wandsworth County Court ordered him to leave the Sankofa Learning Centre and attend Ernest Bevin College, following expert evidence that his existing education was insufficiently broad and challenging. The mother sought permission to appeal, arguing that the judge had failed to consider the Education Act and the Human Rights Act. The central issues were whether either instrument altered the welfare inquiry or justified appellate intervention.

Permission to appeal refused. The decision below was reached with care and was plainly open on the evidence.

1. The court’s task was governed by section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The child’s welfare was paramount under section 1(1). The judge also had to consider the statutory checklist under section 1(3) when determining whether to make, vary or discharge a section 8 order. His point-by-point consideration of the parties’ arguments was a sensible way of fulfilling that duty.
2. The Education Act did not determine the choice between the two proposed systems. Both Sankofa and Ernest Bevin could satisfy the requirement that education be efficient. As Buxton LJ explained, that criterion was directed to broad categories of education rather than the resolution of an individual parental dispute. The judge therefore had to decide which system best served the child’s welfare. The child’s happiness and the mother’s educational convictions were relevant, but they did not outweigh the need for an adequate education.
3. Article 2 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Convention encompassed a wide range of parental religious and philosophical convictions, including both parents’ strongly held views about education. However, the Convention did not determine which of two conflicting convictions should prevail. The court had to decide the issue in the child’s interests, with welfare remaining the overriding consideration under the Children Act.
4. Article 8, concerning family life, likewise required the views of the father and mother to be taken into account. It did not supply a separate answer where the family was divided and the parents’ views conflicted.
5. The absence below of detailed submissions on the Education Act or Human Rights Act did not undermine the decision. Neither argument would have materially altered the applicable welfare inquiry. The order was permission to appeal refused, with detailed assessment of the applicant’s costs payable out of the Community Legal Service Fund.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused. Detailed assessment of the applicant’s costs was ordered, payable out of the Community Legal Service Fund.
• Wandsworth County Court: On 3 September 2001, His Honour Judge Compston ordered the child to leave Sankofa Learning Centre and attend Ernest Bevin College. His reserved written judgment was delivered on 27 September 2001.