Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

Re J (Care Proceedings: Past Possible Perpetrators in a New Family Unit) [2013] UKSC 9: Bulwarks and logic – the blood which runs through the veins of law – but how much will be spilled in future? [2013] CFLQ 215

Sep 29, 2018, 19:03 PM
Slug : Gilmore2013CFLQ215
Meta Title : Re J (Care Proceedings: Past Possible Perpetrators in a New Family Unit) [2013] UKSC 9: Bulwarks and logic – the blood which runs through the veins of law – but how much will be spilled in future?
Meta Keywords : Care proceedings, threshold, likely harm, possible perpetrators, relevant facts
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 21, 2013, 10:35 AM
Article ID : 104847

Keywords: Care proceedings - threshold - likely harm - possible perpetrators - relevant facts

The Supreme Court has ruled, with regard to interpretation of section 31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989, that a person's consignment to a pool of possible perpetrators of harm to a child cannot alone found a conclusion that another child ‘is likely to suffer significant harm' at the hands of that person, although in an appropriate case the fact of possible perpetration may still be relevant to proof of the threshold when taken together with other relevant facts. This commentary examines critically the court's reasoning and the decision's implications. It is argued that much of the reasoning is unconvincing and the implications of the decision very worrying.

The full version of this article appears in issue 2 of 2013 of Child and Family Law Quarterly.

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