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
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,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
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