Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

CARE/IMMIGRATION: Re L (Care Order: Immigration Powers to Remove) [2007] EWHC 158 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:14 PM
Slug : re-l-care-order-immigration-powers-to-remove-2007-ewhc-158-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 28, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87573

(Family Division; Holman J; 17 January 2007)

Making a care order which was necessary for the welfare of the child, and not in any way related to the immigration issues concerning the child and mother, the court held that Children Act 1989, s 33(7), under which a child under a care order could not be removed from the UK without either the written consent of every person with parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court, did not apply to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and did not prevent him from deciding to remove the child under the immigration legislation. The statutory purpose of s 33(7) was clear: to prevent a child who was the subject of a care order being removed by a person with parental responsibility without the written consent of the local authority, alternatively that of the court; and also to prevent the authority from arranging the removal or emigration of the child without the consent of the child's parents or alternatively that of the court. Parliament had not intended by enacting s 33(7) to outflank the powers and duties entrusted to the Secretary of State under the immigration legislation.

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