Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
A rare order for a child in utero
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow Harvard Law School; Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn 2023, Kettering NHS Trust applied for an anticipatory declaration for a child...
Stranded spouses: an overview
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4PB, author of A Practical Guide to Stranded Spouses in Family Law ProceedingsThis article provides an overview of the issues that often arise in cases...
View all articles
Authors

Re O and N; Re B - Uncertain evidence and risk-taking in child protection cases [2004] CFLQ 63

Sep 29, 2018, 17:55 PM
Title : Re O and N; Re B - Uncertain evidence and risk-taking in child protection cases [2004] CFLQ 63
Slug : re-o-and-n-re-b-uncertain-evidence-and-risk-taking-in-child-protection-cases-2004-cflq-63
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Sep 22, 2011, 05:05 AM
Article ID : 96009

This commentary critically examines how the House of Lords, when faced with uncertain facts, has applied different standards of proof at the threshold and welfare stages of care proceedings. It proposes that the 'real possibility' test should be applied at all stages of the proceedings. This test strikes the correct balance between protecting children from future risk and interfering, perhaps wrongly, in their lives and in the lives of their parents. However, where there is uncertainty about whether a child has been harmed, or uncertainty about who caused the harm, great caution is needed before family ties are seriously disrupted or terminated. A care plan that protects the child from danger, and no more, may be all that is permitted by Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Proportionality in the face of uncertainty requires that the door is left open to a child's eventual re-integration with her family. This will normally, although not necessarily, be in the interests of the child.

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