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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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...
View all articles
Authors

CARE: Re S [2008] EWCA Civ 1078

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : re-s-2008-ewca-civ-1078
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 12, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88799

(Court of Appeal; Mummery and Wall LJJ; 12 August 2008)

The mother had been 16 and in the care of the local authority when she gave birth; the child was placed in a long-term foster placement by the local authority. The authority then placed the mother and child in a residential assessment, but the placement had broken down very quickly. The mother issued an application for another residential assessment, but withdrew that by agreement with the judge. At a relatively late stage she again sought a residential assessment for herself and the child, but the judge dismissed her application. She appealed arguing that, as in Re L and H (Residential Assessment) [2007] EWCA Civ 213, the lack of an assessment left a gap in the evidence relating to the mother's ability to care for the child. Evidence at the appeal hearing made it clear that, if an assessment were ordered, the final hearing would have to be adjourned. Further, there was a risk that at the end of the assessment the child would not be able to return to the foster placement, the only home the child had ever known.

It was clear from the judgment that the judge had balanced the evidence of experts and social workers, some of which supported further assessment. This, in addition to the issue of delay, the mother's behaviour and the risk to the child, meant that the judge had exercised his discretion appropriately.

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