header-logo header-logo

Judge meets the child

23 June 2017
Issue: 7751 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Q What is the current judicial policy concerning the judge on a Children Act 1989 application seeing the child in person? If that happens, to what extent is the judge compelled to report to the parties on the outcome of the meeting and should the child be told that there is to be full disclosure, if that is to happen?

A The courts follow the detailed Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children issued by the Family Justice Council in 2010. Whether to meet the child is in the discretion of the judge having regard to the purpose of the meeting, the stage of the proceedings and the arrangements which can be made, though where a child expresses a wish to see the judge (particularly in a public law case) then the judge would ordinarily agree. The purpose is not to obtain evidence but to enable the child to gain an understanding of what is going on and to be reassured that they have been understood by the judge. Any meeting should be in the presence

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll