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

Suspicions, sitting on the fence and standards of proof [2009] CFLQ 230

Sep 29, 2018, 17:58 PM
Slug : suspicions-sitting-on-the-fence-and-standards-of-proof-2009-cflq-230
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 26, 2011, 09:29 AM
Article ID : 96181

This commentary explores the decision of House of Lords in Re B (Children) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof). In discarding the gloss imposed by the earlier decision of Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) to the standard of proof to be applied in care proceedings, the House of Lords has acted in a way that is unreservedly to be welcomed. The commentary also examines their Lordships' rejection of the argument that the threshold criteria could be satisfied on ‘evidence' that raises a real possibility of significant harm but which cannot be proven to the level of ‘fact' and its implications for child protection.

 

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