Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re P-S [2013] EWCA Civ 223

Sep 29, 2018, 21:02 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-p-s-2013-ewca-civ-223
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 26, 2013, 02:45 AM
Article ID : 101939

(Court of Appeal, Elias, Pitchford LJJ, Sir Alan Ward, 21 March 2013)

In care proceedings the 15-year-old boy, who had been joined as a party, sought permission to give evidence in person as he did not feel the strength of his feelings were being understood. The application was dismissed in the county court and care orders were made in respect of the boy and his younger half-sibling. The boy appealed.

The children had been removed into care due to concerns of neglect after the mother planned to leave the children while they were at school without making any provision for their care. While in foster care the boy absconded and had unofficial contact with his mother but had now settled well into a different foster home. However, he remained adamant in his wish to return home.

The judge had taken account of relevant matters and disregarded irrelevant matters in arriving at a conclusion that was plainly and obviously correct. She had explained the procedure to the boy, did not need to see him again or hear him give evidence. The harm to him far exceeded the benefit to the judge. That part of the appeal had to be dismissed.

The judge had also been absolutely right in making the care order. The bleak fact was that this was a feckless mother who put her own needs before those of the children. Having found the threshold crossed, the judge was left with no alternative but to grant the care order. The appeal would be dismissed.

 

 

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