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

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