“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
In re J (Children) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 9; [2013] WLR (D) 74
“A real possibility that a parent had harmed a child in the past was not, by itself, sufficient to establish that some other child that he or she now had care of was ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ within the meaning of section 31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 so as to meet the threshold for initiating care proceedings in respect of that other child.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Many children who end up in care are never interviewed by the judge who makes the decision to remove them from their families, according to a report by an influential group of MPs and child protection experts.”
The Guardian, 10th February 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“John Tughan, barrister, 4 Paper Buildings, considers some recent important public law decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court relating to children.”
Family Law Week, 21st January 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
Nottinghamshire County Council v Suffolk County Council: [2012] EWCA Civ 1640; [2012] WLR (D) 376
“The local authority responsible for providing financial and other support for a child under the Children Act 1989 was any authority which looked after the child or, if the child was not a looked after child, the local authority in whose area the child was living.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Noel Arnold, Head of Legal Practice at the Coram Children’s Legal Centre, considers the importance of Independent Visitors for looked after children and clarifies confusions in the current arrangements.”
Family Law Week, 13th December 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re K (Children) (Direction to Investigate: Jurisdiction) [2012] EWCA Civ 1549; [2012] WLR (D) 364
“In family proceedings the court had jurisdiction to make more than one order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 directing a local authority to investigate a child’s circumstances and consider issuing care proceedings. Where a judge was satisfied that the local authority either had not complied with the initial section 37 direction or had conducted an investigation which failed to a significant degree to engage with the court’s concerns, the court could extend or renew its section 37 direction.”
WLR Daily, 29th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Honourable Mr Justice Ryder delivered the keynote speech in Bristol at the annual conference on Friday 16 November 2012.”
Association of Lawyers for Children, 16th November 2012
Source: www.alc.org.uk
“A 15-year-old boy denied the chance to give evidence to a legal hearing about whether he should stay with his mother or be taken into care has launched a Court of Appeal test case.”
Daily Telegraph, 19th November 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Radhika Handa, barrister, of Coram Chambers compares the court’s consideration of children’s wishes in Hague Convention and Children Act cases, in both private and public law.”
Family Law Week, 26th October 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025