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

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re J and MM (Care Proceedings: Unauthorised Contact) [2013] 1820 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:10 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-j-and-mm-care-proceedings-unauthorised-contact-2013-1820-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 24, 2013, 03:05 AM
Article ID : 103179

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 26 June 2013)

The local authority applied for care orders in respect of two children, aged 9 and 4. A fact-finding hearing concluded that the parents had been reckless and incompetent in their management of the older child's asthma and as a result she had suffered significant physical and emotional harm. She had been subjected to years of unnecessary treatment and had learned to think of herself as a sick child.

The children were currently living with their grandparents and the older child had experienced a remarkable improvement in her health and well-being. The parents sought a return of the children to their care and had been having regular contact. They had also been attending psychotherapy sessions to improve their understanding of the situation.

A psychological assessment of the parents found that they had little insight into their actions and only a superficial acceptance and understanding of the findings. The local authority and the guardian concluded that the children should remain with the grandparents and continue having contact with the parents.

Prior to the hearing to consider special guardianship the school reported that the children had been having unsupervised contact with the parents and had stayed with them overnight. All family members initially denied that unauthorised contact had taken place but the mother later confessed that it had.

The local authority care plan, supported by the guardian, was for both children to be removed to a foster placement with a view to a placement application being made in relation to the younger child.

The parents did not have capacity to care for the children and they had only just started on the process of understanding the needs of the children. It was not clear how much progress they were capable of making. While the grandparents had provided good day-to-day care of the children, previous assessments had been unduly optimistic given the previously unknown attitudes of the grandparents and of the family's overall plan. Evidence of the grandparents demonstrated that they were unable to put the needs of the children above family loyalties. It was in the best interests of the children to move to a foster placement. The judge made care orders and approved the local authority care plan.


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