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
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