‘In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On 30 January 2015 Mr Justice Keehan handed down his judgment in Northamptonshire County Council v AS and Ors (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 199 (Fam). It is another case where the Local Authority having breached parties Articles 6 and 8 rights in care proceedings the court awarded damages within care proceedings.’
The World of Family Law (Garden Court Chambers), 23rd February 2015
Source: www.gcfamily.wordpress.com
In re Z (Children) (DNA Profiles: Disclosure) [2015] EWCA Civ 34; [2015] WLR (D) 76
‘On a purposive construction of sections 19 and 22 in Part II of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, biometric material seized and retained by the police could not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than criminal law enforcement, nor could a court order its disclosure for an unconnected purpose. Such a construction was compatible with the right to respect for a person’s private and family life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 5th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Sir James Munby says approach taken by Darlington Borough Council “almost a textbook example of how not to pursue a care case” over fears of links to EDL.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th February 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Julie Stather, barrister of Westgate Chambers, considers the development of claims for damages arising from breaches of human rights in care proceedings.’
Family Law Week, 12th February 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A family judge was reprimanded by Court of Appeal judges twice in two days and told he should be “embarrassed” by the way he handled a case, it has emerged.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th February 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has ordered a county council to pay £17,000 in damages under the Human Rights Act following a “truly lamentable” catalogue of errors, omissions, delays and serial breaches of court orders in a child care case.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It would not be appropriate in care proceedings to dispose of a case at the case management hearing where there remained any significant issue as to threshold, assessment, or placement; nor could it ever be appropriate where the children’s guardian had not at least had an opportunity of seeing the child or children in question and to prepare a case analysis. Where, unusually, a case was to be disposed of at that hearing adequate notice had to be given to the parties; reluctance on the part of the parents or the children’s guardian would ordinarily be fatal. Furthermore a care order should not be made without some reasons or a judgment, no matter how concise, noting the available options, the positions of the parties and confirming that the outcome for the child was in his or her best interests and was proportionate.’
WLR Daily, 30th January 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has sharply criticised a county court judge for adopting a “ruthlessly truncated” and “fundamentally unprincipled” process when he made final care orders at what the parties expected to be a directions hearing.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘HHJ Dodds is well known to readers of this blog. His style of case management was also analysed (and found wanting) by the Court of Appeal the following day in Re S-W (children) [2015] EWCA Civ 27 (30 January 2015). The judgments leave one to ponder whether these cases are a product of the stresses that have emerged from the greater expectations now put on the shoulders of judges to case manage litigation or whether, as previously discussed in this blog by David Hart QC here, it is a problem that arises with clever judges who find that they are, by temperament, not inclined to listen patiently to other people (generally considered to be a core part of the job description).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A Family Division judge has awarded damages under the Human Rights Act against a local authority in what he described as an “unfortunate and woeful case” involving a baby taken into foster care. Mr Justice Keehan cited a “catalogue of errors, omissions, delays and serial breaches of court orders” by Northamptonshire County Council. Unusually, the judge decided to give the judgment in this sensitive case in public in order to set out “the lamentable conduct of this litigation by the local authority.”’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Local authorities need to be “proactive and vigilant” in taking measures to prevent girls being subjected to the “great evil” of female genital mutilation, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales has said.’
The Guardian, 14th January 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
In re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625; [2014] WLR (D) 539
‘In re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2014] 1 WLR 563 had not been intended to change and had not changed the law; it was primarily directed to practice. Where adoption was in the child’s best interests local authorities were not to shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders.’
WLR Daily, 16th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Dr John Fox, barrister of Lamb Building, reviews some recent cases which may suggest a re-consideration of the burden of proof in cases of alleged non-accidental injury.’
Family Law Week, 27th November 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Paul Bishop, an independent social worker and formerly a Children’s Guardian, draws on 20 years’ experience of interviewing children involved in family proceedings.’
Family Law Week, 28th November 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A judge has sharply criticised social workers for giving “visibly biased” evidence when a local authority applied for a final care order in relation to a three-year-old boy with a view to placing him for adoption.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th November 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The number of children in care has risen to its highest level for nearly 25 years following the death of Baby P and recent child sex exploitation scandals, the government’s spending watchdog has found.’
The Guardian, 27th November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Parents facing the prospect of having their children taken away from them should have legal aid to fight their case, the Bar Council has said.’
The Bar Council, 17th November 2014
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
In re D (A Child) [2014] EWFC 39 ; [2014] WLR (D) 471
‘It was the responsibility—indeed, the duty—of the judges in the Family Court and the Family Division to ensure that proceedings before them were conducted justly and in a manner compliant with the requirements of articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Where legal aid was unavailable in care proceedings there were, in theory, three other possible sources of public funding: (i) the local authority, as the public authority bringing the proceedings, (ii) the legal aid fund, on the basis that the child’s own interests required an end to the delay and a process which was just and Convention-compliant, or (iii) Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, on the basis that the court was a public authority required to act in a Convention-compliant manner.’
WLR Daily, 31st October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024