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

CAPACITY: Coventry City Council v C, B, CA and CH [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam), [2012] COPLR 658

Sep 29, 2018, 20:35 PM
Slug : capacity-coventry-city-council-v-c-b-ca-and-ch-2012-ewhc-2190-fam-2012-coplr-658
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2013, 09:08 AM
Article ID : 101623

(Family Division, Hedley J, 30 July 2012) 

The mother, who had experienced a disrupted childhood, was vulnerable and suffered from significant learning difficulties. Her three previous children were all placed for adoption and the local authority plan was for the most recent baby to be adopted. The mother opposed adoption and wished to care for her.

Previous assessments of her parenting capacity were all negative. On the day of the birth the mother consented to accommodation of the child pursuant to s 20 of the Children Act 1989 but the mother did not have access to her lawyer until after the child's placement.

The mother and child claimed under s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was clear that the baby's best interests were fulfilled by adoption. However, the local authority accepted that the rights of the mother and baby under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 were breached on the day of the child's birth. The mother could only provide the relevant consent under s 20 if she had the requisite capacity in light of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Hedley J provided guidance on s 20 procedures, approved by the President of the Family Division.

 

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