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

CONTACT: Re W (Removal at Birth: Contact)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:00 PM
Slug : contact-re-w-removal-at-birth-contact
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 25, 2013, 05:37 AM
Article ID : 101743

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Pitchford, Kitchin LJJ, 21 February 2013)

A multi-agency plan was put in place for immediate removal at birth of the child. There were serious concerns regarding the father's criminal history and a psychological assessment concluded that he suffered from a personality disorder. The social work report recorded that the father had threatened that he could assemble a mob to assist him in kidnapping the child from local authority care.

After the baby was removed at birth under a police emergency protection order the local authority applied under s 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 for permission to refuse the mother contact. Its view was that it would not be safe to permit contact as she was seen to be submissive and pliable in the hands of the father. The application was supported by the children's guardian.

While the judge was concerned at the prospect of denying the mother contact she was not satisfied that there were sufficient safeguards to protect the child and that the application would be granted on an interim basis until the court conducted a fuller investigation in 16 days' time. The parents appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. The judge could not be found to have been plainly wrong particularly in circumstances where the children's guardian was recommending the course taken. In emergency situations such as this a decision had to be taken there and then without time to adjourn for parties to prepare position statements and file evidence. 

 

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