Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: R v Cafcass [2011] EWHC 1774 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:45 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC1774
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 4, 2011, 11:55 AM
Article ID : 95389

(Court of Appeal; Munby LJ and Thirlwall J; 12 July 2011)

Four children were the subject of separate care proceedings. There was a very long delay before the allocation of a guardian. The Official Solicitor sought a declaration that Cafcass acted unlawfully and in breach of its statutory duty by failing to appoint a guardian earlier. Defended on the basis that Cafcass owed no public law duty to any child to allocate guardian.

Held that Cafcass has a duty to appoint a guardian as soon as reasonably practicable taking into account its general functions, duties and resources. Cafcass does not owe a specific duty to an individual child.  A mere delay in allocation and appointment of guardian did not of itself give rise to any actionable breach of either Art 6 or Art 8.

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