Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re W [2011] EWCA Civ 661

Sep 29, 2018, 17:45 PM
Slug : 2011EWCA661
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 21, 2011, 10:18 AM
Article ID : 95337

(Court of Appeal; Carnwath, Lloyd and Wilson LJJ; 31 March 2011)

The mother came to this pregnant having been tortured and raped in Uganda. She was granted indefinite leave to remain in UK. When the child was born the mother's mental health problems put the child at risk (threats of infanticide and actual self-harm). The child was fostered and the mother was on good terms with foster parents. The mother became pregnant again and the relationship with the father broke down but remained on good terms.

On the facts the judge had been justified in refusing the mother's application for an assessment under s 38(6) Children Act despite the support of the guardian and doctor. The assessment was premature pending a psychiatric report. However the judge should have adjourned rather than dismissed the application to ensure continued public funding. Obiter consideration of the relevance of the cost of the assessment.

 

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