Key Facts
- •Tom, a 13-year-old boy, applied for leave to apply to vary existing child arrangements and specific issue orders relating to his living arrangements and schooling.
- •Tom wished to live with his father and attend Y Comprehensive School.
- •His mother and Children's Guardian opposed the application.
- •This was the sixth set of court proceedings concerning Tom.
- •Previous court cases involved disputes about Tom's living arrangements and schooling.
- •The court considered Tom's understanding and maturity in relation to the application.
Legal Principles
Leave to apply for a section 8 order by a child can only be granted if the court is satisfied the child has sufficient understanding.
s.10(8) Children Act 1989
Even if a child has sufficient understanding, the court retains discretion and child's welfare is not paramount. The court considers all circumstances, including prospects of success.
s.10(8) Children Act 1989
The court may make an order preventing further applications without leave if further applications would put the child at risk of harm.
s.91(14) Children Act 1989
Assessing a child's understanding involves considering intelligence, emotional maturity, reasons for direct involvement, understanding of the process, and risks of harm from participation or exclusion.
Mabon v Mabon [2005] EWCA Civ 634; Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1051; In Re C (A Child) (Child Ability to Instruct Solicitor) [2023] EWCA Civ 889; CS v SBH & Others [2019] EWHC 634 (Fam)
Outcomes
Tom's application for leave to apply was dismissed.
The court found Tom lacked sufficient understanding to make the application due to his emotional immaturity, the influence of his father, and lack of understanding of the consequences of his choices.
An order was made under s.91(14) Children Act 1989, preventing further applications regarding Tom until his 16th birthday without court permission.
This was to prevent further harm to Tom from continued litigation and to allow him to focus on therapy and stability.