Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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