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
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Lockdown 2: how does it affect child contact?
No sooner had clarity been obtained as to how child contact would work within and across the tier system, than the government announced its suspension in England.  From 5 November 2020, a 4-week...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re K (Care Orders: Jurisdiction to Renew Interim Care Orders) [2012] EWCA Civ 1549

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-k-care-orders-jurisdiction-to-renew-interim-care-orders-2012-ewca-civ-1549
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 5, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101107

(Court of Appeal, Lord Dyson MR, Sullivan, McFarlane LJJ, 29 November 2012)

When the parents separated the children lived with their father. Following the father suffering a mental breakdown they moved to live with the mother and step-father. One of the children returned to live with the father until the local authority intervened and he moved to live with the maternal grandparents. Although the other child continued to live with the mother, the local authority was advised by the children's guardian to undertake a s 37 assessment of the placement due to concerns of emotional abuse. Despite the local authority concluding that the child could be returned to the mother's care the judge made a further direction under s 37 and ordered the child should not return. Both children were placed in the care of the maternal grandparents under a special guardianship order. The mother and step-father appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. The judge had a discretion to renew or order a further s 37 assessment where he felt the local authority had failed to conduct a thorough investigation and it was necessary in the circumstances. Although criticisms could be made of the judge's communication of clear terms of the s 37 assessment it could not be said that he had been plainly wrong.

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