Re L (A Child) [2007]

1. Facts:

• A child, aged from 3 months to 3 years, lived with her maternal grandparents due to her parents’ drug abuse issues.

• The grandparents were granted a Residence Order for the child and sought an Adoption Order.

• Instead of an Adoption Order, the judge issued a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) for the grandparents.

• The case involved several contested issues: changing the child’s surname, contact arrangements with the mother and father, and disclosure of case papers to a consultant psychiatrist.

2. Outcome:

• Justice Black decided against changing the child’s surname to the grandparents' name, maintained supervised contact with the mother six times a year, and allowed only indirect contact for the father.

• The judge refused the grandparents’ request to disclose the case papers to a consultant psychiatrist, citing concerns about privacy and parental responsibility.

• CoA - Lord Justice Ward upheld the judge’s decisions:

1. Child’s Surname: Agreed it was in the child’s best interest not to change her surname to that of the grandparents, acknowledging that the child should be supported in understanding her situation without unnecessary complications.

2. Mother’s Contact: Confirmed that supervised contact with the mother was appropriate given the circumstances.

3. Father’s Contact: Upheld the decision to allow only indirect contact for the father, considering the child’s well-being.

4. Disclosure of Papers: Supported the refusal to disclose the case papers to a consultant psychiatrist, agreeing with the judge's stance on privacy and the limits of the Special Guardianship Order.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Special Guardianship Order: This case illustrates how an SGO can provide substantial parental responsibility while addressing the complexities of contact arrangements and the privacy of all parties involved.

• Surname Issue: The decision not to change the child’s surname reflects the principle of maintaining the child’s identity and minimising disruption while acknowledging the grandparents’ role.

• Contact Arrangements: The case demonstrates the court’s approach to balancing contact arrangements with biological parents against the child’s best interests and safety. Supervised contact and restricted access are employed to manage potential risks while maintaining some level of contact.

• Privacy and Disclosure: Justice Black's refusal to disclose case papers underscores the court’s focus on privacy and the sensitivity of information in guardianship cases. It highlights the importance of protecting personal and family information while considering the child's needs.

• Consistency and Parental Responsibility: The case highlights the challenges in balancing the rights and responsibilities conferred by Special Guardianship Orders with the need for consistent and fair management of contact arrangements and privacy issues.