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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
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...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re M (Care Order: Findings Against Father

Sep 29, 2018, 18:48 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-m-care-order-findings-against-father
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 16, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103803

(Court of Appeal, Arden, Ryder and Macur LJJ, 4 Oct 2013)

The child was born in Kenya but she and her mother relocated to the UK when she was 6-years old. In the UK the mother was involved in prostitution and drug taking. The mother and child lived with the mother's new partner who had been subject to allegations of rape.

When the child visited her father in Kenya she was found to be suffering from vaginal discharge and a medical examination found her hymen had broken. He was aware of the allegation of rape against the mother's partner but sent the child back unaccompanied on the understanding that the partner had moved out. However, the partner returned to the home and cared for the child during evenings while the mother was working.

The local authority initiated care proceedings and the child remained with foster carers for over a year. The father applied for a residence order for the child to return to Kenya with him. The care proceedings focused on the circumstances whereby the father permitted the child to return to the mother knowing she had been sexually assaulted and of the allegation against the mother's partner.

The judge found that in allowing the child to return to the care of the mother in those circumstances, particularly in which he failed to travel to the UK for over a year after learning the mother's partner had moved back in and even after care proceedings had been instigated, his care of the child had fallen well below that expected of a parent. The father's application for residence was refused. The father appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. There had been sufficient evidence before the judge to come to the conclusions he did about the father and to grant a care order. The father should not have permitted the child to return in the circumstances known to him and he should have taken steps to secure her placement with her in Kenya or even travelled back to the UK with her. 

 

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