“Technical evidence can sometimes be crucial to judicial decisions and this case shows how dramatic the consequences are for a family if evidence is unreliable. If the respondent in this case had not put probity before its commercial interests, a mother would have been deprived of the care of her child. Hence the importance of publishing the judgment.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
In re C (A Child)(Care Plan: Adoption): [2013] EWCA Civ 1257; [2013] WLR (D) 394
“Where the court was hearing applications for both a care order and a placement for adoption order, the court should avoid a linear approach of considering and rejecting options in turn, and instead engage in a holistic evaluation of the central question of the welfare of the child by reference to the considerations in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, rather than the provisions in section 1 of the Children Act 1989.”
WLR Daily, 18th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re W (A Child); In re H (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177; [2013] WLR (D) 384
“Guidance on how the Court of Appeal should approach applications for permission to appeal and appeals arising from decisions of family judges refusing parents leave in accordance with section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose the making of adoption orders in relation to their children where such decisions were delivered before the decision in In re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; [2013] WLR (D) 348.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227; [2013] WLR (D) 382
“Once a decision to institute care proceedings had been taken the court became the decision-maker until a full order was made. The local authority was required to provide the evidence to enable the judge to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That included a description of the services that were available and practicable for each placement option and each order being considered by the court. There should be no question of a local authority declining to file its evidence or proposed plans in response to the court’s evaluations. If a local authority made it clear that it would not implement a care plan option about which evidence had been given and which the judge preferred on welfare and proportionality grounds, then in a rare case it could be subjected to challenge in the High Court within the proceedings. In the unlikely event that a local authority declined to abide by a judge’s orders and directions in the future, the judge should inform the local authority’s monitoring officer to make a report to the authority with the intention that the authority was brought back into compliance.”
WLR Daily, 11th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A High Court Judge has hit out at the ‘astonishing’ cost of a six year legal battle in the Court of Protection which ended today after all parties agreed a woman should stay in care.”
The Independent, 11th October 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
What Are Care Proceedings For? (PDF)
Zenith Chambers Munkman Lecture, 16th September 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
In re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146; [2013] WLR (D) 348
“The Court of Appeal set out the exercise the court had to undertake when considering an application under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by a parent or guardian for leave to oppose the making of an adoption order, reiterated the fundamental principles of adoption, and explained what good practice, the 2002 Act and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms all demanded, both when the court was being asked to approve a care plan for adoption and when it was being asked to make a non-consensual placement order or adoption order. The Court of Appeal went on to consider the approach an appellate court should adopt when hearing an appeal against a refusal of leave under section 47(5).”
WLR Daily, 17th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A mother who went missing with four of her children during a care dispute with her Spanish ex-husband has been cleared of being in contempt of court for breaching a High Court order.”
BBC News, 24th July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Janet Bazley QC and Eleri Jones of 1 Garden Court consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 22.”
Family Law Week, 16th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Professor Judith Masson, School of Law University of Bristol, and Dr Jonathan Dickens, Centre for Research on Children and Families, University of East Anglia, explain the lessons learned for future practice from research conducted into the use of the pre-proceedings process in care cases.”
Family Law Week, 13th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
In re B (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] WLR (D) 226
“Determinations by the judge that the statutory threshold criteria were crossed for the making of a care order under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 and that such an order should be made were evaluative judgments with which the appellate court, exercising a review jurisdiction, should only interfere if it were satisfied that the judgments were wrong.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of B (a Child) (FC) [2013] UKSC 33 | UKSC 2013/0022 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 12th June 2013
“Andrew Pack, care lawyer with Brighton & Hove City Council, explains and comments on the changes made by the recently published Revised Public Law Outline.”
Family Law Week, 4th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Leanne Buckley-Thomson, barrister at 12 College Place, provides an overview of wardship and considers its usefulness in modern family proceedings.”
Family Law Week, 18th May 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Dave Phillips and Naomi Madderson, members of the child care team at 37 Park Square Chambers, consider the impact of a case in which a local authority which removed two children subject to an interim care order was judicially reviewed and in which the authors acted.”
Family Law Week, 6th May 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“John Tughan, barrister of 4 Paper Buildings, examines two important recent judgments: the Supreme Court’s decision in J (Children) and the Court of Appeal’s in M (A Child).”
Family Law Week, 18th April 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“This was a successful claim for judicial review brought by a mother in care proceedings in respect of her two children who were removed from the care of the paternal grandparents. To that extent, it is a first. It concerns the duty on the Local Authority to consult with parents when an Interim Care Order is in place.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Andrew Pack, care lawyer with Brighton & Hove City Council, examines the routes available to a local authority to return a case to court if the care plan goes awry.”
Family Law Week, 10th April 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Jacqui Thomas, barrister of 37 Park Square Chambers, Leeds, considers the implications of the recent Tower Hamlets judgment for the cost of kinship care.”
Family Law Week, 17th March 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024