Conflict in lives of conjoined twins.

In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined twins: Medical treatment) The Times, 10 October 2000, CAThe Court of Appeal started from the position that the court had jurisdiction to override and reverse parental consent to medical treatment, otherwise an essential incident of parental responsibility under Children Act 1989 s.3(1).

Here the question arose as to whether the court should order termination of the life of one conjoined twin, where not to do so would have the result of eventually terminating the life of the other, on whom the first depended for survival.

The parents opposed termination.

The court ordered termination on the basis of evidence that the life of the stronger twin could be saved and she may enjoy a relatively full life.

Balancing the interests of the two twins, those of the stronger twin overrode the weaker who was beyond help.

The least detrimental choice was to allow the operation.

Issue estoppelIn Re D (Child: Threshold criteria) The Times, 13 October 2000, CA.A local authority had compromised proceedings in relation to an older child of the mother, M, on terms that it was agreed that the mother had failed to supervise M and as a result he has been admitted to hospital for ingestion of substances on various dates.

When a psychiatrist and psychologist were asked to prepare an assessment of M and D's parents they were hampered by the fact that the question of whether or not the mother had deliberately attempted to harm the child was not judicially resolved.

The local authority then said it wanted a judicial determination of this issue.

The mother said an issue estoppel prevented this and the court could not depart from the original agreement between the parties.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

There was no estoppel here.

The court retained a discretion to reinvestigate the circumstances of the case, especially where the medical intervention demanded it.

Where issue estoppel operates a party cannot then adduce evidence which tends to contradict the facts already established or adjudicated upon (see Re K & P (Children Act Proceedings: Estoppel) [1995] 1 FLR 257).

However, there must have been a trial of the issue on the merits of the application.

This had not occurred in Re D.

Child support arrearsA parent with care cannot sue in the civil courts for arrears of child support maintenance.

Mrs Fornear was owed around 16,000 for her children, according to the CSA.

The agency had not yet obtained a liability order to enable it to enforce the order against the father, Mr Saunders.

His Honour Judge Ticehurst held that ss32-40 to the Child Support Act 1991 was a self contained code for enforcement, albeit by the Agency only.

The judge refused to allow Mrs Fornear to amend her notice of appeal so that the High Court could consider whether or not this finding was incompatible with the principle that an individual is entitled to a fair trial of a civil right before the courts (art.

6(1) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights).