Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: RE G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965

Sep 29, 2018, 21:11 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-g-care-proceedings-welfare-evaluation-2013-ewca-civ-965
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 6, 2013, 10:17 AM
Article ID : 103271

(Court of Appeal, Longmore, McFarlane, Davis LJJ, 30 July 2013)

The now 9 year old child had been abandoned by the mother but returned to her care 3 years later when he was diagnosed with severe autism. She requested respite care for 2 weeks but failed to make contact at the expiry of that period. The child was moved in foster care and care proceedings were commenced. The mother sought the child's return to her care with a programme of support including a supervision order.

The district judge found that while there was a strong bond between the mother and child, she could not be relied upon to provide adequate parenting and that to make no order would leave the child unprotected. The only option was a full care order.

The mother appealed on the issue of whether the judge had correctly performed the welfare evaluation at the conclusion of the care proceedings and whether the appellate judge had discharged her duty to conduct an effective review as to proportionality.

In family proceedings there would often be a single, central, welfare question for determination. The  judge had to perform a welfare evaluation, applying the welfare checklist and then there would often be a choice between two or more options. In choosing between the options it was inappropriate to view each option in isolation, rejecting them one by one, and then selecting the only option left standing without any particular consideration of whether it contained internal deficits. What was required was a more global, holistic, evaluation of each option before deciding which one best met the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare.

The court had to actively evaluate proportionality in every case by conducting a balancing exercise in which each option was evaluated in the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives, each option then being compared, side by side, against the competing options. In this case the judge had conducted a linear analysis and had given to consideration to making a supervision order. Appeal allowed.

 

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