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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: A London Borough v A [2012] EWHC 2203 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:01 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-a-london-borough-v-a-2012-ewhc-2203-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 7, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101795

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 27 July 2012)

Following the father's unsuccessful appeal against findings of fact that he had been responsible for the child's death (Re A (Fact-Finding Hearing: Appeal) [2012] EWCA Civ 1278), the local authority sought care orders in relation to the three surviving children, now aged 6, 18 months and 7 months.

The local authority case was that the children would be at risk of serious and possibly fatal physical harm if they were in the unsupervised care of their father. They would also be at risk of emotional harm if they were raised with a belief, instilled by their father, that one of the siblings was responsible for the child's death.

The mother and father had separated but there were concerns over her ability to keep the children safe taking into account her belief that the father was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. If she were to engage in psychotherapy to address this concern then proceedings would be delayed for an uncertain amount of time but it was realistically possible that within 3 months it could be determined whether there had been a reduction in risk.

The judge narrowly concluded that it was in the children's interests for the mother to be given a final chance to parent the children and protect them from their father. The prize for the children of being cared for by their mother was so valuable that they should only be denied it if the disadvantages of waiting were too great or the chances of success too small.

 

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