In the matter of R

Be that as it may, the rival contentions before us were in effect a submission from the Minister that a full care order was necessary, and from the Guardian that all that was necessary for the time being would be a supervision order. Accordingly it is necessary to look to the principal reasons why those rival contentions were made.

Advocate Hollywood opened by reminding us that there was indeed a substantial difference between a supervision order and a care order. In that context we were referred to the judgment of Judge Coningsby QC in the case of Re S (J) (A Minor) (Care or Supervision Order) [1993] 2 FLR 919 at page 950 where the judge said this:-

"We tend to look at supervision orders and care orders under the same umbrella because the threshold criteria or the coming into operation of the two is the same. But when we actually look at the content of the two orders we find that they are wholly and utterly different. This is because of s 22 and because of the passing of parental responsibility. Supervision should not in any sense be seen as a sort of watered down version of care. It is wholly different.

[While a supervision order is in force, it shall be the duty of the supervisor...]

to consider whether or not to apply to the court for its variation or discharge."