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: 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