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: 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