LA v SB & Ors

The family court should determine only live issues properly constituted between the parties and within its statutory role. Care proceedings are not a vehicle for deciding medical treatment where the treating hospital and parents do not ask the court to rule on that treatment. The court must satisfy itself that withdrawal of care proceedings is appropriate, but cannot attach unenforceable conditions concerning local-authority support. After withdrawal, a child in need remains subject to the statutory support framework in Part III of the Children Act 1989; the court has no continuing supervisory role under that Part. Where no live issue remains, a further expert report is unnecessary and the proceedings should end.

The London Borough of Haringey brought care proceedings concerning five children. The proceedings concerning four children were no longer considered necessary. MB, aged six, had severe epilepsy caused by Rasmussen’s encephalitis, and the hospital treating him had recommended epilepsy surgery, although it later indicated that other treatment options required further discussion with the parents.

The local authority sought permission to withdraw the care proceedings while also seeking leave under section 100 of the Children Act 1989 to invoke the inherent jurisdiction, or permission to apply for a specific issue order concerning surgery. The father sought conditional withdrawal and the guardian sought a second medical opinion. The central issue was whether the court had any current role when neither the hospital nor the parents sought a decision about surgery.

1. Disposition. The local authority was given unconditional permission to withdraw the care proceedings. Its applications concerning the inherent jurisdiction or a specific issue order, the father’s application for conditions, and the guardian’s application for a second opinion were refused.
2. No live medical-treatment issue. Sir Nicholas Wall P held that MB’s surgery was a matter between the parents and the hospital. Neither side invited the court to decide it. There was therefore no properly constituted lis and no issue for the court to determine. The court would not speculate about whether it might exercise jurisdiction if a properly constituted dispute arose.
3. Limits of the court’s role. The Children Act 1989 draws a clear division between the functions of courts and local authorities. The court may decide whether children should be subject to care orders, but should not decide matters that are the responsibility of others or attempt to control local-authority services. The authorities Re O (A Minor)(Medical Treatment) [1993] 2 FLR 149, Re R (A Minor)(Blood Transfusion) [1993] 2 FLR 757 and Re T (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1997] 1 FLR 502 were considered, but no ruling on their wider implications was necessary.
4. Withdrawal and continuing support. The court’s function was limited to satisfying itself that withdrawal was appropriate. The father’s proposed conditions had no nexus with withdrawal and could not in any event be enforced by the court. MB remained a child in need under section 17 and Part III of the Children Act 1989, but the court had no role under that statutory support framework. No further report was required and the proceedings should end.

not stated in the judgment.