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
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...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
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