‘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
‘A High Court judge refused to embark on a final hearing in a complex child care case because of lack of time and the absence of any slack in the family court system to allow for an early hearing, it has emerged.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th November 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Sarah Jennings & Esther Lieu, 3PB, with District Judge Julie Exton look at the Family Drug and Alcohol Court.’
Family Law Week, 31st October 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘One of Britain’s most senior judges has launched a withering attack on cuts to legal aid after a couple with learning disabilities was not provided with a lawyer to fight the forced adoption of their two-year-old son.’
The Independent, 31st October 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A Local Authority and M (By his litigation friend via the Official Solicitor) v E and A (Respondents) [2014] EWCOP 33 (11 August 2014). And now the Court of Protection has published a ruling by Baker J that a a supporter of the discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield embarked on an odyssey of intrusive remedies and responses to her son’s disorder, fabricating claims of damage from immunisation, earning her membership of what science journalist Brian Deer calls the class of “Wakefield mothers.” ‘
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th October 2014
Source: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Michael Jones, barrister of 15 Winckley Square, considers recent developments in respect of care proceedings involving another European state.’
Family Law Week, 16th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘M, who was 24-years-old, was in the late stages of her first pregnancy (X County Council v M). She suffered from persecuting delusions including a belief that mental health services were “murderers” and would murder her and her unborn child. The local authority applied to the court for permission not to disclose to M the care plan for the removal of her baby at birth. They also applied for a reporting restrictions order. The Family Division held that despite the fact that both orders sought were draconian, the orders would be granted in the circumstances of the case.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 14th August 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Jennifer Kotilaine, barrister, of 42 Bedford Row considers the President’s endorsement of the three-stage test in Re ZZ [2014] EWFC 9.’
Family Law Week, 28th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘John Tughan, barrister, of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent important judgments in public law children cases.’
Family Law Week, 24th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Section 32(1)(a)(ii) of the Children Act 1989, as amended, required that care cases be concluded within 26 weeks. However, that time limit could be extended if it was necessary to enable the court to resolve the proceedings justly since the 26 weeks rule was not, and must never be allowed to become, a straightjacket, least of all if rigorous adherence to an inflexible timetable risked putting justice in jeopardy.’
WLR Daily, 15th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Sally Gore, barrister, of Fenners Chambers considers recent case law and other developments of particular significance to local authorities.’
Family Law week, 17th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘In this successful appeal against care and placement orders in respect of a young infant with Polish parents, the Court of Appeal were sharply critical of comments made by the first instance judge which made it clear he had closed his mind at an early stage to the possibility of the baby being looked after by her grandparents in Poland. The Court held that both the judge and the local authority had failed to give sufficient weight to their positive obligation under Article 8 to consider ways of retaining a child within the family.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Michael Jones, barrister, of 15 Winckley Square Chambers considers the lessons to be learned from Re DE (A Child) when care plans provide for placements at home with the family.’
Family Law Week, 7th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Re Z (Children) concerned an application in ongoing care proceedings for the Metropolitan Police to provide copies of DNA profiles held by them. The application was made by the children’s guardian and brought so that the paternity of the children could be determined. This issue arose as although the man alleged to be the children’s father (referred to in the judgment as X) insisted he was so, he refused to consent to DNA testing. X was seeking a role in the children’s lives.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 3rd July 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Thousands of mothers over the past seven years have had successive children removed by family courts in England, the BBC has learned.’
BBC News, 23rd June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
In re ZZ (Children) [2014] EWFC 9; [2014] WLR (D) 256
‘The court’s approach to a review fact-finding hearing applied whether the issue arose before the same judge or a different judge, whether in the same or different proceedings, and whether in relation to the same or different children; different approaches were not called for in different forensic contexts although the application of the general approach in any particular case would reflect the circumstances of that case.’
WLR Daily, 12th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re DE (A Child) (Care Order: Change of Care Plan) [2014] EWFC 6 ; [2014] WLR (D) 246
‘Any local authority and court making decisions about the long term future of children had to address all the options which were realistically possible before coming to a decision and, where a care order had been granted on the basis of a care plan providing that the child should remain at home, a local authority considering changing the plan and removing the child permanently from the family was obliged in law to follow the same approach and had to have regard to the fact that permanent placement outside the family was to be preferred only as a last resort where nothing else would do. While that process was being carried out, the child should remain at home under the care order unless his safety and welfare required that he be removed immediately.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Paul Hart, barrister, 15 Winckley Square Chambers, considers whether the courts are asking the right question when determining the capability of parents to care for their children.’
Family Law Week, 10th June 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The most senior family judge in England and Wales has supported the provision of contraception to parents who have large numbers of children taken into care.’
The Guardian, 10th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Father accused of suffocating his baby by rolling on her as they slept can be reunited with her twin after a judge ruled that the baby’s sister should not have been removed by social workers.’
Daily Telegraph, 5th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024