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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Norfolk County Council v C [2007] EWHC 1566 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : norfolk-county-council-v-c-2007-ewhc-1566-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 6, 2007, 04:09 AM
Article ID : 87161

(Family Division; Holman J; 29 June 2007)

In care proceedings it was found that non-accidental injuries had been caused to a child. The child and two siblings were placed into care and subsequently adopted and, when a further sibling was born, the local authority commenced care proceedings in respect of this fourth child. After the parents and the child underwent a successful residential assessment the local authority sought permission to withdraw the application in respect of the fourth child. Permission was granted: there was no current basis for considering that the child was at any risk of harm and every reason to believe the child was thriving in a positive family environment.

Further medical evidence had been amassed in respect of the injured child: this would form the basis of an appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the earlier orders made in connection with the first three children. No judicial comment would therefore be made in respect of this aspect of the case.

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