In the matter of A (A Child)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0112

Parties

Appellant(s)

A (by her Guardian)

Respondent(s)

B (A Council)

L

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal was right to determine that a court’s powers arising from sections 37(1) and 38(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) are limited only to a child who is the subject of the proceedings?

Facts

On 27 January, the local authority started care proceedings in respect of LA and her child, MA. At an urgent hearing on the same day HHJ Davis made an interim care order and listed a case management hearing. During the urgent hearing, the judge expressed concern about the condition of the maternal aunt (TA)'s property, where MA had been staying. He instructed LA and her representatives to leave court and asked the local authority for information about their involvement with TA and her family. The judge said that he wanted the local authority to take steps to protect the three children. The judge informed the local authority and the guardian’s solicitor that he would be considering section 37 of the 1989 Act at the next hearing which provides that, where a question arises with respect to the welfare of any child and a care or supervision order may be appropriate, the court may direct the appropriate authority to undertake an investigation of the child’s circumstances. At the case management hearing, the judge made further case management directions in the substantive proceedings relating to LA and MA. At the end of the case management hearing, at the judge’s request, LA and her counsel withdrew from the court room. The guardian’s solicitor informed the judge that she had been told that the conditions in TA’s house had not improved but, if anything, had got worse, expressing concerns about domestic violence and a possible gun at the property. The judge concluded at the hearing that the threshold under section 37 had been met. The judge then issued a short judgment, directing the local authority under section 37 to undertake an investigation of the circumstances of TA’s three children and made an interim supervision order with respect to those children. The children’s guardian representing MA was appointed as guardian for TA’s children. The local authority expressed concerns relating to the making of orders concerning non-subject children in the absence of notice being given to their parents. The Court of Appeal allowed the local authority’s appeal against the making of the section 37 direction and the making of the interim supervision order. The children’s guardian now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

10 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Leggatt

Lord Stephens

Permission to Appeal decision date

28 July 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The application does not raise an arguable point of law.

Back to top