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

SUPERVISION ORDERS: Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v T [2008] EWCA Civ 199

Sep 29, 2018, 17:27 PM
Slug : wakefield-metropolitan-district-council-v-t-2008-ewca-civ-199
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 19, 2008, 06:53 AM
Article ID : 86585

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Arden and Hughes LJJ; 19 March 2008)

Although the judge's pragmatic decision to impose a supervision order for 3 years was extremely sensible in the circumstances of the case, under Children Act 19-89, s 31 and Sch 3, para 6, a judge could provide 3 years protection only by making at least two orders, the first a supervision order of 12 months duration and the second an order extending the first order for 2 years. Difficulties stemmed from this interpretation, not least that it was unclear when an extension could first be issued, but the plain language of the statute required this interpretation. Offering guidance, the court doubted that there would ever be a need to apply to extend a supervision order of 12 months duration before the last quarter of the supervision order's first life; how well within that quarter the application should sensibly be issued depended upon the extent of the issues raised by the application and the ascertainable capacity of the relevant court. The issue of any necessary application to extend should not be delayed so as to imperil the local authority's imperative need for a determination before expiration of the current order.

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