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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
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...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
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,...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re S (Minors) [2010] EWCA Civ 421

Sep 29, 2018, 17:50 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-s-minors-2010-ewca-civ-421
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 28, 2010, 09:40 AM
Article ID : 90839

(Court of Appeal; Wilson LJ and Baron J; 22 April 2010)

The father posed a grave danger towards his children. The parents were injuncted from communicating with one another. The mother had left a refuge to return home, although the father was not in home. The judge had indicated that unless the mother withdrew her aspiration to secure relaxation of the injunction, the children would be removed. The mother did withdraw her application but the local authority nonetheless amended the interim care plan to remove the children into short term foster care because of concerns that the mother was unable to exclude father.  

No advance notice of the application was given by the local authority to the mother. The change was endorsed by the same judge on the basis of the existing interim care orders. The local authority had complete discretion as to contact.

The mother appealed. Held, the circumstances in which children were removed from mother had been entirely unacceptable. No adequate notice of proposed removal was given to the mother. The grounds for change had not demonstrated that safety of the children demanded immediate separation in absence of any breach of the injunction. The judge had made misrepresentation to the mother in telling her that the children would be removed unless she did something, and then removing them even though she had done the required action. There was no proper balancing of pros and cons of leaving children in the mother's care. There was no consideration of ordering the mother to return to refuge. Foster care should not have been approved without contact arrangements and if a summary order had been needed, a further hearing should have been listed.

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