HC Deb 28 October 1975 vol 898 cc1317-9

'(1) Before revoking a custodianship order the court shall ascertain who would have legal custody of the child, if, on the revocation of the custodianship order, no further order were made under this section.

(2) If the child would not be in the legal custody of any person, the court shall, if it revokes the custodianship order, commit the care of the child to a specified local authority.

(3) If there is a person who would have legal custody of the child on the revocation of the custodianship order, the court shall consider whether it is desirable in the interests of the welfare of the child for the child to be in the legal custody of that person and—

  1. (a) if the court is of the opinion that it would not be so desirable, it shall on revoking the custodianship order commit the care of the child to a specified local authority;
  2. (b) if it is of the opinion that while it is desirable for the child to be in the legal custody of that person, it is also desirable in the interests of the welfare of the child for him to be under the supervision of an independent person, the court shall on revoking the custodianship order, order that the child shall be under the supervision of a specified local authority or of a probation officer.

(4) Before exercising its functions under this section the court shall, unless it has sufficient information before it for the purpose, request—

  1. (a) a local authority to arrange for an officer of the authority, or
  2. (b) a probation officer,
to make to the court a report, orally or in writing, on the desirability of the child return- ing to the legal custody of any individual, and it shall be the duty of the local authority or probation officer to comply with the request.

(5) Where the court makes an order under subsection (3)(a), the order may require the payment by either parent to the local authority, while it has the care of the child, of such weekly or other periodical sum towards the maintenance of the child as the court thinks reasonable.

(6) Sections 3 and 4 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (which contain supplementary provisions relating to children who are subject to supervision, or in the care of local authority, by virtue of orders made under section 2 of that Act) apply in relation to an order under this section as they apply in relation to an order under section 2 of that Act.

(7) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to reports which are requested by magistrates' courts under this section as they apply to reports under subsection (1) of that section'.—[Dr. Owen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Owen

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In Committee on 24th July I accepted that the Bill as drafted did not accord sufficient protection to children who were the subject of applications for the revocation of custodianship orders. I undertook to bring forward an amendment on Report to ensure that the court dealing with a revocation application had adequate information and appropriate powers to make whatever orders it saw fit.

The general purpose of the clause is to provide that, when determining whether to revoke a custodianship order, the court shall consider what result revocation of the order would produce for the child, having regard to the provisions of Clause 42(1) on the revival of rights to legal custody on revocation, and that, if the court has insufficient information for this purpose, it shall be empowered to call for a report. Where the court considers that the operation of Clause 42(1) would produce results that would not accord with the welfare of the child, or that supervision would be desirable, the court is empowered to commit the care of the child to a local authority or to make a supervision order.

Dr. Vaughan

We agree with the Minister that the clause is a considerable improvement on the previous wording. It shows that our lengthy discussions in Committee on this subject have turned out to be worth while.

In Committee we were concerned that the court would not be sufficiently informed about the circumstances of the child. The Minister will remember that we spent much time discussing the extent to which the court should investigate these circumstances. The Minister said that it would be sufficient to give the court authority to require a written report or an oral one. Both new Clause 6 and new Clause 4 incorporate that requirement. We welcome the situation as put forward in new Clause 6.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to