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
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...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re K & H [2006] EWCA Civ 1898

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : re-k-and-h-2006-ewca-civ-1898
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 20, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88195

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Carnwath and Wall LJJ; 20 December 2006)

The test for removal of children from parents at an interim stage was not that there were reasonable grounds for believing that significant harm to the child was likely, but that the children's removal was necessary for their interim protection. In this case the elder child's independent wishes and feelings had to be put to the court for consideration. Given that the guardian, the only professional representative of the children, was urging removal, while the children, aged 13 and 11, were firmly in favour of remaining with the father, it was impossible for the children to feel that their views were being properly and eloquently put to the court. A solicitor had provisionally assessed the elder child as having the capacity to instruct her, but had not applied to the court for a direction for his separate representation, as she should have done, instead returning the issue to the solicitor acting for the guardian.

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