Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
CARE: Re M (Care Order: Removal)  EWCA Civ 1594
Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Jun 12, 2005, 09:46 AM
Article ID :88557
(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Richards LJJ; 3 November 2005),  FLR 1043, (2005) The Times, November 11
In considering whether to remove a child, the risk to the child of remaining had to be balanced against the risk of emotional harm in taking the child from its parents, siblings and home. The parents had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the guardian, whose position statement giving reasons for opposing the child's return to the care of the parents had been filed only on the morning of the hearing. This fell short of the standard of fairness so important when the removal of a child from its home was at stake.