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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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