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...
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

FAMILY PROCEEDINGS/RESIDENCE: A Local Authority v E [2007] EWHC 2396 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : a-local-authority-v-e-2007-ewhc-2396-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 19, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86839

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 19 October 2007)

The adult daughter had been taken into care as a child, and placed in foster care; she suffered from a severe learning disability. Since her removal the parents had had a negative and uncooperative attitude towards the local authority. For some years the daughter had no contact with the parents, because the parents refused to attend supervised contact sessions; contact had now resumed. The authority sought declarations that the adult daughter lacked the capacity to decide issues of residence and contact and that it would be in her best interests to remain in her current residential care facility until she was 19 (the maximum age catered for) and thereafter to transfer to a local residential unit. The authority favoured a shared care arrangement, with generous staying contact to the parents, primarily at the weekends. However, the parents threatened that unless the daughter resided with them, they would cease contact with her altogether. The adult daughter lacked capacity to make decisions about her future, and in particular about her residence, education and community care provision, and the nature and extent of the contact she should have with her family. The court was to balance all the relevant factors relating to the situation of an incapacitated person, and to decide what solution or order was required to promote the persons best interests, and, in evaluating those interests, to conduct a welfare appraisal in accordance with the balance sheet approach espoused by the authority. Given the parents opposition to the shared care model, it was in the adult daughters best interests to have a full-time placement at the residential unit, holding open and encouraging contact with the parents. The wholly parental model of care upon which the parents insisted was not in the daughters best interests in the short or medium term, and certainly not while she was still in education.

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