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

CARE PROCEEDINGS:Bristol City Council v A and A and Others [2012] EWHC 2548 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : 2012ewhc2548fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 1, 2012, 10:25 AM
Article ID : 100397

(Family Division, Baker J, 25 September 2012)

Care proceedings in relation to two children, aged 4 and 3, were initiated due to the mother's drug abuse and its impact on her capacity to parent. Hair strand testing was carried out to determine the level of the mother's recent drug taking. The results from the first lab showed that the mother had been using increasing amounts of cocaine and opiates. The mother strongly denied those results and obtained a second set of results from a different lab which supported her denial.

Prior to a hearing to determine the conflict in evidence the first lab admitted its evidence was unreliable. The two labs intervened in the proceedings due to the potential consequences in this particular field of evidence. The second lab sought guidance from the court on hair strand testing.

With regard to the overriding objective and the fact that the first lab had admitted its own human error it was not necessary for the court to provide guidance on this well-established and uncontroversial area.

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