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: Re B (Care Order)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : re-b-care-order
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 4, 2008, 09:53 AM
Article ID : 88197

(Court of Appeal; Wilson LJ and Black J; 31 January 2008)

Because of grave concerns about two children living with the father, whose mental stability was in question, and who had threatened to kill himself and the children, the authority obtained a full care order, with no contact between the children and the father. The eldest child, aged 9, repeatedly ran away from foster care, made illicit telephone calls to the father, and refused to go to school. The father appealed the care order and applied for a residence order and a supervision order in relation to the eldest child.

In the context of care arrangements that had failed, the only viable option was return the child to the father's care. The court did not want the local authority to have a full care order referable to the child while the child was living with the father on a long-term basis. Accordingly, the full care order, which had failed, would be set aside, and the local authority would place the child with the father subject to an interim care order.

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