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
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
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