Spotlight
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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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