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 (Care Proceedings: Care Plan) [2007] EWHC 393 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : re-k-care-proceedings-care-plan-2007-ewhc-393-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 1, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88899

(Family Division; Munby J; 1 March 2007)

Having found the threshold criteria established justices had been wrong to refuse to make a care order on the basis that they were not prepared to approve a final care plan that did not include some direct contact post-adoption. The justices may have been misled by an inaccurate and misleading summary in the headnote of Re R (Care Proceedings: Adjournment) [1998] 2 FLR 390, stating that the question of contact, once a care order had been made, was a matter for the local authority to decide, not the court. In fact the justices had the power to make a care order, superseding any stated intention by the local authority in the care plan. The justices should have approved the care plan except in relation to contact, either going on to make a contact order then and there, or giving directions, or leaving it to the mother to make an appropriate application.

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