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 P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cobb J, 14 June 2021)Parental Responsibility – Circumcision – 21-month-old Muslim child – Raised in non-Muslim household of extended family – Mother sought...
R (Care Proceedings Joinder of Foster Carers) [2021] EWCA Civ 875
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Baker, Carr, Lewis LJJ, 15 June 2021)Practice and Procedure – Care proceedings – Foster carers joined as party to care proceedings – AppealThe...
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: R (G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 152 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : r-g-v-nottingham-city-council-2008-ewhc-152-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 11, 2008, 10:33 AM
Article ID : 85039

(Family Division; Munby J; 1 February 2008)

Whatever the impression a casual reader might gain from reading some newspaper reports, no local authority and no social worker had the power to remove a child from its parent, or, without the agreement of the parent, to take a child into care, unless they had first obtained an order from a family court authorising that step: an emergency protection order under Children Act 1989, s 44; an interim care order under s 38, or, in an exceptional case (and subject to s 100), a wardship order. Section 46 permitted a police constable to remove a child without prior judicial authority if the constable had reasonable cause to believe that the child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, but neither local authorities nor social workers possessed that power. Of course, like anyone else, a social worker or nurse was entitled to intervene if that was necessary to protect a baby from immediate violence at the hands of a parent. Further, a hospital might be able to rely upon s 3(5), under which a person with care of the child, but without parental responsibility could take action necessary to safeguard or promote the child's welfare, to justify action taken in relation to a child in its care, but only if there was a medical justification for such intervention. Otherwise, local authorities, hospitals and medical staff had no power to remove a child from parents unless they had first obtained judicial sanction.

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