Children Act 1989 and a child’s rights thirty years later

6 November 2019 by

Child rights in 2019

The Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) received Royal Assent on 23 November 1989 (30 years ago); and it was in force from October 1991. It was a major reform of children law which required everyone – parents, children (when of ‘understanding’), judges, social workers, health professionals and lawyers – to learn a new set of legal concepts and attitudes. But what about children’s rights? And what has happened to the law’s regard for those rights since 1989?

The Act required courts to consider a child’s ‘wishes and feelings’ when that child’s welfare was in issue in a court. In parallel with this, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 Art 12.1 – though not formally part of the Act – says:

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Amongst its more radical reforms – as seen in 1989 – the Act included the following:

  • A provision to give children the right, if of sufficient understanding, to take part in litigation under the Act about them; or to start their own family proceedings (with permission of the court);
  • One overarching statute setting out the private aspects of children proceedings alongside the administrative (which became known as ‘public law’: local authority care proceedings) components;
  • An obligation to adopt a consistent set of welfare principles to govern both private and administrative proceedings;
  • An obligation to define parental responsibility as responsibility, not as parents’ rights.

Child’s views, wishes and feelings can be seen in the still highly influential 1985 Gillick case [Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112]. The House of Lords recognised the fact of a child’s understanding (in Gillick the ‘understanding’ was whether a doctor could provide contraceptive information to a child under 16 without her parent’s consent: the answer was, yes). Parent’s rights must yield to a child’s right to make decisions as the child ‘reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision’.

What does the mature child know of her or his rights?

Case law on children’s rights, since then, has been rare. How far is this because children do not know or understand their rights? In a 2006 case Lady Hale (as a Law Commissioner, Brenda Hoggett (now Lady Hale) was closely involved with the development of the Act) considered whether an eight year old Romanian child should be returned to Romania. Of a child’s views she said:

[57] … As any parent who has ever asked a child what he wants for tea knows, there is a large difference between taking account of a child’s views and doing what he wants. Especially in Hague Convention cases, the relevance of the child’s views to the issues in the case may be limited. But there is now a growing understanding of the importance of listening to the children involved in children’s cases. It is the child, more than anyone else, who will have to live with what the court decides…. Just as the adults may have to do what the court decides whether they like it or not, so may the child. But that is no more a reason for failing to hear what the child has to say than it is for refusing to hear the parents’ views.

In cases in 2006 and 2016 the Court of Appeal and in 2010 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale, again) have recognised the importance of children’s views; but the extent of this recognition is limited in day-to-day children cases before the family courts.

And the recognition of children’s rights in how a child gets to court to enforce their rights is, I am afraid, a jumble of rules and of confused law. It is not a credit to rule-makers or modern law reformers. The contexts in which a child’s understanding is critical to proceedings, and to their views coming into account, may crop up as follows:

  • For children to make their own application to the court, whether or not with their own legal representation;
  • To make a separate application, with or without representation, in existing proceedings;
  • Within existing private proceedings, to dispense with their court-appointed guardian and to proceed alone or represented by the child’s own lawyer;
  • A child whose instructions in care proceedings to an instructed solicitor conflict with those of the children’s guardian; and the child wants to proceed on the child’s own instructions; and
  • A child who wishes to pursue fresh applications alongside a care order made in earlier care proceedings and wants to instruct a solicitor where the child’s views conflict with the children’s guardian.

Case law should show how these rights are exercised; but it is sparse, probably because child’s rights are not being understood by children ‘of age and understanding’ and are not being recognised by family judges. One 2016 case actually shows the Court of Appeal failing to get right the ‘complex’ – as the judges described them – rules.

And exercise of rights?…

The fact is, any of us – and a child is no exception – only has rights if we can understand what our rights are, and how we can get access to courts to exercise them. This must be more so in the case of a child, in terms of their understanding of what their rights are. So how does a child in each of the five categories above make application to the court? How does she find out what her rights are to apply to the court? How does she find out about legal aid and how find out how to apply to the court?

By any normal standard the rules for children proceedings are obscure (‘complex’ said Lady Justice Black in 2016). For example, category (1) in the list above: the child who wants to move to another home or have something to say about parental contact looks for procedure in two places: CA 1989 s 10 and in procedural rules. If a child believes she is of ‘sufficient understanding’ she can apply for an order. But who is to say if a child in ‘of understanding’ (answer: nobody really knows whose assessment job that is)? Yes, the child can make her own application to the court and if a judge gives permission; or if she can find a solicitor who will take on her case and obtain legal aid for her.

So where are children’s rights 30 years on from the 1980s which gave child law the Gillick case, the UN Convention and Children Act 1989? Children law as a whole has moved on massively. But children’s rights? I am not so sure. Go back to Art 12.1 and to ‘assure to the child … [a] right to express views freely’? To ‘assure to the child’ she must know of any right she has, and of how her views can be expressed.

The mature child’s views should surely be critical to any proceedings which affect that child? We are an appreciable way from having a procedural framework in the family courts to ‘assure [that] to the child’.

David Burrows is a solicitor advocate, trainer and writer. His previous posts are here:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration Immigration/Extradition immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraq War Ireland islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland legal aid legal aid cuts legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberty library closures Libya licence conditions life sentence lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical negligence medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis military Milly Dowler Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder music Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London Offensive Speech oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution Personal Injury personality rights perversity PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police powers police state police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings post office power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation Radmacher Ramsgate rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg sumption super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: