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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Local Authority v M, F and M&M [2009] EWHC 3172

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : local-authority-v-m-f-and-mandm-2009-ewhc-3172
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 7, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87235

(Family Division; Hedley J; 7 December 2009)

The allegations of violence by the mother against the father included attempted violence with knifes, strangulation, assaults with a screwdriver, boiling water and petrol, false imprisonment, threats to kill the mother and child and kidnap of a child. However, the mother did not leave the father until after his imprisonment for unrelated offences. The father had threatened the mother in letters sent from prison, and the father's family had found out where the mother was living, and made additional threats.

The police had made it clear that they considered all the threats to be wholly credible. The local authority issued care proceedings whose real purpose was to assess and test the mother's ability to remain separate from the father, and effectively to hide from him. The mother applied to keep the father, who had parental responsibility, ignorant of the care proceedings and to discharge him as a party. However, the local authority opposed the application, on the basis that it needed information from the father and his family.

The issue as to whether to take the unprecedented step of excluding a father with parental responsibility from care proceedings, was to be considered within the framework of the advocate to the court.

The starting points were (i) that the father should be entitled to participate in the case, and (ii) that the children and mother should not be put at risk of serious harm by the conduct of the proceedings. This father, even from prison, represented a real and substantial risk to the children and the mother; only his exclusion from the proceedings would realistically achieve the end of protecting the mother and children; although extensive redaction of documents was possible, so many documents would have to pass through so many hands that the risk of accidental disclosure of a crucial piece of information would be high.

Given that the father had shown no interest in making any contact with the children, and that any order to discharge him from the proceedings was to be kept under review, the father would be discharged as a party. The court was wholly unpersuaded that discharging the father and directing that the fact of the proceedings not be disclosed to him would significantly inhibit the authority in the assessment they were undertaking.

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