A Local Authority v D & Ors

The power to extend a supervision order under Schedule 3, paragraph 6(3) of the Children Act 1989 does not depend on the order still being current when the application is made or heard. The original making of the supervision order is sufficient. The provision should be read consistently with the child-focused purpose of supervision orders, the interests of children and applicable human rights considerations. A local authority retains the responsibility for deciding whether to issue care proceedings; the guardian’s views may be influential but are not decisive.

The local authority applied to extend a supervision order concerning three children for six months. The existing order had expired, or was arguably due to expire, before the application was issued. The central issue was whether the court retained jurisdiction under Schedule 3, paragraph 6(3) of the Children Act 1989 to extend the order after expiry.

The court then considered whether the children’s welfare justified the requested extension and whether more intervention, including care proceedings, was required.

1. Jurisdiction. The court had power under Schedule 3, paragraph 6(3) of the Children Act 1989 to extend a supervision order after it had expired. The power depended on the prior making of the original order, not on its continuing currency or on an application having been made before expiry.
2. The statutory language should be read in a way consistent with the child-focused nature of supervision orders and the interests of children. Practical considerations also supported that interpretation: local authorities could continue monitoring children without rushing back to court, while the statutory three-year limit prevented indefinite uncertainty. The reasoning in Jones v Jones [2000] 2 FLR 307 was helpful by analogy, and the approach in Re X [2014] EWHC 3135 was followed.
3. The court expressly rejected the contrary approach suggested obiter by Lord Justice Thorpe in T v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2008] EWCA Civ. 199, namely that an application must both be issued and heard before expiry. The court also declined to follow the pre-expiry application limitation stated in Mutch v Mutch [2016] EWCA Civ. 370.
4. On the merits, the children’s progress was broadly satisfactory but incidents had crossed the line from robust parenting into neglect. Cultural difference warranted tolerance, but did not displace the parents’ fundamental obligation to care properly for the children. The local authority’s plan for continued supervision was appropriate. The court extended the supervision order for six months from 10 June 2016, until 10 December 2016.
5. The decision whether to issue care proceedings belonged to the local authority. The guardian’s views were practically influential but not decisive.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.