T v S (Wardship)

Wardship remains available in private-law proceedings where the child’s welfare requires it, although it is unusual. It may be appropriate where persistent parental conflict has effectively abrogated the parents’ exercise of parental responsibility and detailed judicial control is necessary. The court may retain care and control, delegate agreed aspects of parental responsibility to the parents, and prescribe arrangements for matters on which they cannot agree. In determining the child’s principal home and division of time, welfare is paramount. The court must consider the impact of changing established care arrangements and should avoid transferring primary care where that would undermine the child’s consistency and stability.

H, aged nearly four, had remained a ward of court following prolonged and highly conflicted proceedings between his parents. He lived principally with his mother and had developed regular staying contact with his father. Both parents sought sole residence, while numerous issues remained disputed, including parental responsibility, education, circumcision, foreign travel, future applications and the continuation of wardship.

The court had to determine the arrangements that best served H’s welfare, including whether wardship should continue, where H’s principal home should be, how his time should be divided, and how parental responsibility should be exercised.

1. Wardship. Wardship was unusual but permissible in a private-law context where the child’s needs required it. It was retained because the parents’ incessant conflict had effectively abrogated their exercise of parental responsibility, a residence order had assumed disproportionate significance for them, and the case required unusually detailed judicial control. Care and control, and parental responsibility, therefore remained with the court, subject to delegation.
2. Principal home and time. Both parents were capable of meeting H’s physical and educational needs, and neither was manifestly the better parent. A transfer of care and control would be inimical to H’s experience of consistency. H’s principal care therefore remained with his mother, whose greater intuitive responsiveness to his emotional needs was accepted, while his time with his father was to increase substantially. The order aimed ultimately at first, third and fifth weekend contact, equal division of half-terms and holidays, and shared care and control during the periods spent with each parent.
3. Parental responsibility. The parents retained parental responsibility as married parents. Every aspect on which they could agree was delegated to them. Where they could not or would not agree, the court would direct its exercise. The court adopted, with amendments, the schedule concerning parental responsibility in A v A [2004] 1 FLR 1195. Education was to be private if agreed, otherwise State education in B, subject to permitted appeal rights.
4. Circumcision and other orders. On the medical evidence, circumcision was required as soon as reasonably practicable at the hospital in B, with appropriate religious arrangements and parental attendance. Foreign travel was prohibited without permission pending review. A six-month Family Assistance Order was made under s.16 of the Children Act. Applications until the review were reserved to the judge under the inherent jurisdiction, rather than s.91(14). The case was to be reviewed in October 2012.