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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

INTERIM CARE ORDERS: Re B (Children); MB v County Council, AB and KB and EB [2010] EWCA Civ 324

Sep 29, 2018, 17:49 PM
Slug : interim-care-orders-re-b-children-mb-v-county-council-ab-and-kb-and-eb-2010-ewca-civ-324
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 30, 2010, 11:00 AM
Article ID : 90789

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Wall and Aikens LJJ; 30 March 2010)

The judge made an interim care order to permit the local authority to place the two younger children with foster carers pending an assessment of the mother's ability to care for her children. The two older children had expressed a very strong desire to return to the mother's care, and on practical grounds this had been agreed by the local authority. The main focus was whether the mother was able to disengage from a relationship with the violent father.

The appeal was dismissed. Interim care orders were an appropriate mechanism to achieve the local authority's objective. Once the threshold criteria was met (and it was accepted that they had been), whether or not an interim care orders were made was a welfare issue, and did not involve a test whether there was 'an urgent need to keep the children from their mother'. Interim care orders could last only 8 weeks from the date of the first order and 4 weeks from all subsequent orders however long it was going to take for the final hearing to come on. It had been imperative that the sensible conditions that the authority was offering the mother for return of the children should have been reduced to writing.

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