Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

A London Borough v X and others (Wardship: Parental Responsibility; Deprivation of Liberty) [2019] EWHC B16 (Fam)

Jan 8, 2020, 10:33 AM
Public law children – Wardship – Parental Responsibility – Deprivation of liberty
The Family Division held that wardship proceedings should continue, any restriction on the mother's parental responsibility should be made in those proceedings and the care provided for the child amounted to a deprivation of liberty.
Slug :
Meta Title : A London Borough v X and others (Wardship: Parental Responsibility; Deprivation of Liberty) [2019] EWHC B16 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Public law children – Wardship – Parental Responsibility – Deprivation of liberty
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 8, 2020, 00:00 AM
Article ID :

(Family Division, Theis J, 12 December 2019)

Public law children – Wardship – Parental Responsibility – Deprivation of liberty

The Family Division held that wardship proceedings should continue, any restriction on the mother's parental responsibility should be made in those proceedings and the care provided for the child amounted to a deprivation of liberty.


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.


Neutral Citation Number:

Case No: ZE19C00172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 12/12/2019

Before:

MRS JUSTICE THEIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

A London Borough
Applicant

- and -

X
(by her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor
1st Respondent

- and -

Y
2nd Respondent

- and -

Z (By his children’s Guardian)
3rd Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Elpha Lecointe (instructed by LA) for the Applicant
Mr Nicholas O’Brien (instructed by Hudgell and Partners on behalf of the Official Solicitor) for the 1st Respondent
Ms Martha Cover (instructed by Hanne and Co) for the 2nd Respondent
Ms Maud Davis (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing date: 25th and 28th November 2019

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

MRS JUSTICE THEIS

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published. The anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

Judgment: A London Borough v X and others (Wardship_Parental Responsibility_Deprivation of Liberty) [2019] EWHC B16 (Fam)

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from