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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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...
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