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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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