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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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