‘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
R (JG) v Lord Chancellor (Law Society intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 656; [2014] WLR (D) 235
‘Where a child who was a party to private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 had the benefit of public funding in respect of his costs and the court considered that it was necessary to instruct a single joint expert to produce a report to assist the court in determining what was in the best welfare interests of the child, but the other parties had no funding and were unable to pay their share of the expert’s costs, the court could depart from the order that it would otherwise have made, to the greater cost of the publicly funded party, where the failure to adduce the expert’s report would result in a breach of one of the party’s rights under articles 6 or 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the court was not prevented from doing so by section 22(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Where, in the case of a single joint expert, there was no problem over resources, there was no normal rule of equal apportionment of the costs, and that issue of apportionment was to be determined in the exercise of the court’s discretion, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A couple who kept 19 dogs have lost a family court fight for the return of their two children.’
The Guardian, 29th May 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Michael Jones, barrister, 15 Winckley Square Chambers, considers the response of local authorities to the requirements imposed by Re B-S and later cases.’
Family Law Week, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A baby with no name is to be placed for adoption after a High Court judge highlighted concerns about his father’s hostility to social workers.’
BBC News, 25th May 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
In re S (Children) (Care Proceedings: Fact-finding Hearings) [2014] EWCA Civ 638; [2014] WLR (D) 217
‘Reiterating the inappropriateness of separate fact-finding hearings in most care proceedings, it was essential that if there was to be a separate fact-finding hearing, the ambit of the hearing should be clearly defined and understood by all and, if the ambit altered as the case proceeded, that the adjustment was promptly reflected in the schedule of findings sought and that there was an authentic, definitive record of precisely what findings the judge had made.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The phrase “rights of custody,” within the meaning of articles 3 and 5(a) of the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and article 2(9)(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, was not limited to rights which were already legally recognised and enforceable but was to be interpreted purposively as including a reference to a wider category, termed “inchoate rights”, the existence of which would have been legally recognised if the matter had arisen before the particular act of removal or retention in question.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Maureen N Obi-Ezekpazu, FRSA, Barrister and Mediator, Family Matters, asks what can be done to help the plight of young mothers who have had several children permanently removed.’
Family Law Week, 18th May 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A “very unusual” Magistrates’ Court decision to refuse the grant of an emergency protection order (EPO) for a baby boy disempowered agencies, a serious case review into his death has concluded.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th April 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The largest family justice reforms for a generation will come into effect today.’
Ministry of Justice, 22nd April 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘New combined Family Courts have come into being in England and Wales as part of family justice system reforms.’
BBC News, 22nd April 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025