‘Reports of a C-section being forcibly carried out on a woman that came to light in the mainstream press this past weekend have quickly made international news.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The Children and Families Bill 2013 represents one of the biggest shake-ups of the law relating to family life in years.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 3rd december 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Journalist Christopher Booker reported in Saturday’s Telegraph that an Italian woman was forced by Essex County Council social services to have a cesarean section, and then had her baby taken away from her – all sanctioned by the Court of Protection.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Habitual Residence) [2013] EWCA Civ 1434; [2013] WLR (D) 461
‘Where a child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time when the courts of England and Wales were seised of care proceedings relating to the child, the fact that there were no extant proceedings relating to the child in Sweden did not prevent the Swedish courts having jurisdiction under article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.’
WLR Daily, 13th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Essex social services have obtained a court order against a woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and for her child to be taken from her womb by caesarean section.’
Daily Telegraph, 30th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Andrew Pack, care lawyer with Brighton and Hove City Council, considers the options for local authorities in the wake of the Court of Appeal’s landmark judgment in W (A Child) v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1227.”
Family Law Week, 17th November 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“In this case the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, considered an application for a contra mundum injunction by Staffordshire County Council. He emphasised that the only proper purpose of such an injunction was to protect the child and refused to make an order in the wide terms sought by the Council. As a result, he allowed the publication of video footage and photographs of a baby being removed from its parents.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Matthew Burman, barrister of St Albans Chambers explores the respective legal duties of the NHS and local authorities in securing the provision of psychotherapy for parents in care proceedings.”
Family Law Week, 31st October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“John Tughan, barrister, of 4 Paper Buildings reviews important recent cases of which all public law practitioners ought to be aware.”
Family Law Week, 25th October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“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
© Inner Temple Library 2025