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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

CARE: LBH v KJ and IH (by her guardian CJ) [2007] EWHC 2798 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : lbh-v-kj-and-ih-by-her-guardian-cj-2007-ewhc-2798-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 28, 2007, 09:21 AM
Article ID : 88105

(Family Division; Hedley J; 28 November 2007)

In a case concerning a child whose neonatal injuries had left severely disabled, in need of high level and long-term personal care, the court considered what care it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give in the context of a major and lifelong disability. A single parent did not expose herself to a compulsory state intervention in family life simply on the grounds that a particular childs needs were beyond the capacity of one parent, however assiduously she devoted herself to the care of the child (except where a child could properly be said to be beyond parental control). The mother in the instant case had had to deal with proper demands from her other children, housing difficulties, an inadequate trial of home placement that had not been a fair test of her capacity to parent, and had had insufficient support from the authorities. However, the threshold had been established: the mother had not been sufficiently cooperative with professionals, had not faced up to the true needs and demands of the child, lacked the requisite skills to stimulate the child, did not attach proper importance to meticulous hygiene, and did not appreciate that her failure to deal properly with issues of domestic violence exposed the child to risk. However, the court would view with skepticism and alarm any care plan that did not make provision for the fullest involvement of the family.

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