NO:  B1/2001/0917

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 903
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LINCOLN COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE JENKINS)
 
  Royal Courts of Justice  
                                  Strand    
                                  London WC2
 
                             Thursday, 14th June 2001

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE THORPE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN RE G (a Child)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171‑421 4040 Fax No: 0171‑831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR J DE BURGOS (instructed by Stamp Jackson & Procter, 5 Parliament St, Kingston Upon Hull, HU1 1AZ) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Jenkins in the Lincoln County Court on 2nd April 2001.
2.	The application was provisionally refused on paper on 25th May and today Mr De Burgos exercises his right to renew at an oral hearing. He has presented his case with characteristic candour and responsibility and he has told me that at a hearing before Sumner J this week, in relation to his client's elder child J, the local authority informed the judge that a joint application for discharge of Judge Jenkins' care order was intended to be launched in August. That obviously renders an attack upon the care order by the appellate process almost academic. In any event Mr De Burgos has frankly conceded that Judge Jenkins took into account all the relevant matters when arriving at his discretionary preference for a care order rather than a supervision order.
3.	I would only add that that choice was fully reasoned and was directed by reference to two recent cases in which Lady Justice Hale has sought to simplify for trial judges the choice between a care order and a supervision order. The one is the case of Re C and B reported in the Family Court reports and the other is the case of Re O which has seemingly not been reported.
4.	All that leads me to confirm the view that I expressed provisionally on paper, namely that this was a discretionary decision of an experienced circuit judge supported by the opinion of the guardian ad litem. I would only add that Judge Jenkins stressed that he had had the conduct of proceedings in relation to this child throughout, and in those circumstances I think this Court should be particularly wary of interfering with a discretionary decision particularly one that was obviously finely balanced.
5.	For all those reasons this application is refused.
(Application for permission refused; legal aid assessment)