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 S (Interim Residence) [2012] EWCA Civ 1915

Sep 29, 2018, 21:01 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-s-interim-residence-2012-ewca-civ-1915
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 14, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101829

(Court of Appeal, Ward, McFarlane LJJ, 11 September 2012)

During the pregnancy the mother suffered a collapse of her mental health and was admitted to hospital under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. When the baby was born both resided at a mother and baby unit under the umbrella of the Mental Health Act.

As the mother's mental health improved a plan developed for her and the baby to gradually move to the maternal grandmother's home under an interim care order. Unfortunately the mother had been unable to increase her care of the baby and the grandmother had effectively become the baby's primary carer. Assessments of the grandmother were broadly positive and supportive of her being the child's long-term carer.

While the grandmother's approval as a foster carer was pending she commented to social workers her belief that the mother's mental health issues had been caused by demonic forces and that instead of involving mental health services she had first contacted her church for assistance. Following the disclosure of that information the fostering panel adjourned its decision pending a psychiatric assessment of the grandmother.

Due to that requirement the grandmother would not be assessed within the time limit imposed by the Care Planning Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and so the local authority sought a removal of the baby from the grandmother's care. The judge acceded to the application and made an interim care order. The grandmother was granted permission to appeal.

The grandmother's appeal was allowed. The judge had been plainly wrong in his conclusion that the baby could act in some way which led the grandmother to consider that she was possessed by demons and cause her to harm the child was not supported by evidence. There was evidence of the grandmother experiencing hallucinations 30 years ago but no recent reports of such episodes.

There was also no evidence that the mother had suffered harm as a result of the grandmother's reaction to her decline in mental health. Reports of the grandmother's care of the child were positive and there was no reason to remove her from her care. The court made interim residence and supervision orders. 

 

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