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

Interim Care Orders: Is the Bar set too Low?

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : AndrewBainham-AprilFLJ2011
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 1, 2011, 12:19 PM
Article ID : 95143

Andrew Bainham

Barrister at 14 Gray's Inn Square, Fellow of Christ's College Cambridge

In ‘Removal of children at interim hearings: is the test now set too high?' published in April [2009] Fam Law 321, Darren Howe asked the pertinent question whether the test was now set too high for the removal of children at the interim stage of care proceedings. He instanced chronic neglect as a particular area of concern. I want to focus here on what might be viewed as the opposite problem; that interim care orders (hereafter ‘ICOs') are being made too readily by the lower courts and to highlight what, it may be argued, is a blurring of the distinction between voluntary co-operation and compulsory action. I will contend that some current practice is contrary to the philosophy of the Children Act 1989. I suggest a modest reform which might assist co-operation between parents and local authorities at the interim stage, based on a welfare determination, and which might avoid pushing at the boundaries of the interim threshold.

To read the rest of this article, see April [2011] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here

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