Starred Care Plans – Their Conception And Demise

 

This concern led to the invention by the Court of Appeal of “starred care plans” in the case of Re S & Ors: Re W & Ors sub nom Re W & B (Children): W (Child) (Care Plan) [2001] EWCA Civ 757 where the Court of Appeal considered strongly that there was a duty on both local authorities and Guardians to bring back to court any case where there were failing or shifting care plans.

The Court of Appeal conceived of a system being introduced where the court making a care order could set milestones or ‘stars’ for key dates by which certain, specified steps were to be accomplished, and insist that if they were not, the local authority must inform the Guardian, so that an application under the Human Rights Act 1998 could be made to court for its consideration.

The House of Lords (as it then was) determined that the Court of Appeal had gone too far and overturned that decision and the ‘starred care plan’ system in Re S & Ors: Re W & Ors sub nom Re W & B (Children) : W (Child) (Care Plan) [2002] UKHL 10. Their Lordships considered that this system crossed the line between interpretation of the statute and fundamentally altering it, shifting as it did the intention of Parliament that the court should determine whether a care order was made and, where it did, the responsibility of managing the care order lay with the local authority.  Continue reading →

via Application To Withhold Care Plan For Removal At Birth From Mother.

On 23 April 2014 it was eventually agreed by the local authority, the Official Solicitor, as litigation friend for LW, and the three hospital trusts that LW did not lack capacity to consent to medical treatment, including an elective caesarean section. I, therefore, made no order on the Court of Protection application.

1. On 1 May the mother gave birth by an elective caesarean section (‘CS’).
2. At the conclusion of the hearing on 23 April an issue about costs arose. I directed the parties to file written submissions. The Official Solicitor and the local authority both seek an order for costs against one or more of the hospital trusts.

Court of Protection Rules 2007 Part 19 rr 156-160

Property and affairs – the general rule

156. Where the proceedings concern P’s property and affairs the general rule is that the costs of the proceedings or of that part of the proceedings that concerns P’s property and affairs, shall be paid by P or charged to his estate.

Personal welfare – the general rule

157. Where the proceedings concern P’s personal welfare the general rule is that there will be no order as to the costs of the proceedings or of that part of the proceedings that concerns P’s personal welfare.

Apportioning costs – the general rule

158. Where the proceedings concern both property and affairs and personal welfare the court, insofar as practicable, will apportion the costs as between the respective issues.

Departing from the general rule

159.—(1) The court may depart from rules 156 to 158 if the circumstances so justify, and in deciding whether departure is justified the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including–

(a) the conduct of the parties;

(b) whether a party has succeeded on part of his case, even if he has not been wholly successful; and

(c) the role of any public body involved in the proceedings.

(2) The conduct of the parties includes–

(a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings;

(b) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular issue;

(c) the manner in which a party has made or responded to an application or a particular issue; and

(d) whether a party who has succeeded in his application or response to an application, in whole or in part, exaggerated any matter contained in his application or response.

(3) Without prejudice to rules 156 to 158 and the foregoing provisions of this rule, the court may permit a party to recover their fixed costs in accordance with the relevant practice direction.

Rules about costs in the Civil Procedure Rules to apply

160.—(1) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, Parts 44, 47 and 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“the 1998 Rules”) shall apply with the modifications in this rule and such other modifications as may be appropriate, to costs incurred in relation to proceedings under these Rules as they apply to costs incurred in relation to proceedings in the High Court.

(2) The provisions of Part 47 of the 1998 Rules shall apply with the modifications in this rule and such other modifications as may be appropriate, to a detailed assessment of the remuneration of a deputy under these Rules as they apply to a detailed assessment of costs in proceedings to which the 1998 Rules apply. Continue reading →

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEEHAN gave directions on North Somerset Council’s application for permission under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court not to disclose the care plan for the unborn child to the mother, namely removal into care…