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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

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