Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re C (Supervision Order) [2007] EWCA Civ 576

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : re-c-supervision-order-2007-ewca-civ-576
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 15, 2007, 08:47 AM
Article ID : 87075

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Gage and Toulson LJJ; 15 May 2007)

The mother had been a victim of domestic violence. She reported to the police that the father had shaken the child, a five-week old baby, although the child was unharmed when police officers attended. The father pleaded guilty to common assault. In subsequent care proceedings the judge did not find the allegation that the baby had been shaken to be proved but on evidence of a history of domestic violence made an interim supervision order under s 31 Children Act 1989. The father was excluded from the family home and his contact with the baby restricted to a weekly one hour supervised visit. Both parents appealed the decision and argued that the incidents found proved by the judge were inadequate to amount to the crossing of the threshold under s 31 Children Act 1989, as the judge had not found that the baby had been shaken and as such there was nothing that could justify state intervention in family life.

There was documented evidence of a history of domestic violence between the mother and father and clear indications that the parents were challenged by the demands of a young baby and that there was a risk of violent incidents occurring in future. On this basis the judge had been fully entitled to find as he did. The appeals would be dismissed.

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