Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY/ CONTACT: Bryan v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 2507 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : 2010EWHC2507
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 26, 2010, 12:32 PM
Article ID : 93201

(Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court); Ryder J; 24 August 2010)

The father was in prison for committing sexual offences against two 7 year old girls. The prison assessed that contact between father and his children (12 year old daughter, 6 year old step-child and 4 year old son) should be limited to written correspondence and telephone contact on the basis that visits would be a risk to the children. The local authority had recommended allowing the inclusion of visits, but with no unsupervised contact at any time, noting that both mothers were in favour of this.

The father sought judicial review. The same statutory guidance was available to both prison governors and local authorities. The judge interpreted the guidance as follows: the governor must request an assessment in the form of a written report from children's services, which must be in accordance with Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families.  An initial assessment would usually suffice, but it must include an assessment of the child's needs, wishes and feelings.

Decision quashed. There had been no assessment in respect of any of the children considering the risk in the context of the conditions in the prison. A governor who obtained a response that did not consider the context could not simply rely upon it, but had an independent duty to assess the risk to the child concerned.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from