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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
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...
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