Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

In the matter of D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42

Oct 1, 2019, 13:04 PM
Medical treatment – Deprivation of liberty – Consent – Parental responsibility
The Supreme Court held that parental consent could not substitute for the subjective requirement under article 5 ECHR for valid consent to the deprivation.
Slug :
Meta Title : In the matter of D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42
Meta Keywords : Medical treatment – Deprivation of liberty – Consent – Parental responsibility
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 30, 2019, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

(Supreme Court, Hale, Carnwath, Black, Lloyd-Jones and Arden LJJ, 26 September 2019)

Medical treatment – Deprivation of liberty – Consent – Parental responsibility.

The Supreme Court held that parental consent could not substitute for the subjective requirement under article 5 ECHR for valid consent to the deprivation.

 


 

For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.

 


 

THE COURT ORDERED that no one shall publish or reveal the name or address of the Appellant who is the subject of these proceedings or publish or reveal any information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the Appellant or of any member of his family in connection with these proceedings.

[2019] UKSC 42
On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Civ 1695

JUDGMENT

In the matter of D (A Child)

before

Lady Hale, President
Lord Carnwath
Lady Black
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lady Arden

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

26 September 2019

Heard on 3 and 4 October 2018

 

Judgment:  In the matter of D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42

 

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Medical Treatment
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from