‘The High Court has quashed an assessment by the London Borough of Lambeth after it failed to re-assess whether a child – after a diagnosis of autism – was in need of assistance.’
Local Government Lawyer, 17th July 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Sarah Jane Ewart and Rosalind English discuss the latest developments in access to abortion for Northern Irish women, the lessons to be learned from the Charlie Gard case, and the difficult decision that the courts had to reach when considering the best interests of children in an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish family, where the father had left the community as a transgender person.’
Law Pod UK, 6th July 2017
Source: audioboom.com
‘An imam who sexually touched four young girls during Qur’an lessons at a mosque has been jailed for 13 years.’
The Guardian, 7th July 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Gabrielle Jan Posner, Barrister and Recorder, Trinity Chambers Chelmsford, considers Cafcass’s response to the record levels of demand for its services.’
Family Law Week, 4th July 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A coroner has called for changes to the way Home Office officials in Calais and Dunkirk deal with vulnerable child refugees after a 17-year-old Kurdish refugee fled Isis in Iraq only to be crushed under the wheels of a lorry while trying to seek sanctuary in the UK.’
The Guardian, 5th July 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal has granted permission to the father to appeal against the decision of the High Court earlier this year. Briefly, Peter Jackson J denied a father, who now lives as a transgender person, direct contact with his five children who live with their mother in the heart of a Charedi community of ultra-orthodox Jews.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Cuts to legal aid may have stopped tenants in Grenfell Tower from pursuing safety concerns that could have prevented the fire, the president of the Law Society, Robert Bourns, has suggested.’
The Guardian, 29th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘This was the judicial review of the ‘reduced’ benefit cap – £20,000 pa outside London, £23,000 in London, brought by claimants who were all single mothers with children, including children under two years old. The claim was on the basis that the regulations were discriminatory, either against women as the majority of single parents, or against the children, on the basis that single parents of children under two years old were not able to ‘escape’ the cap by obtaining 16 hours or more a week of employment.’
Nearly Legal, 25th June 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
“The Administrative court has confirmed that the duty on local authorities under s.17 of the Children Act 1989 is an ongoing one and held that Lewisham London Borough Council had acted irrationally in concluding in a follow-up assessment that a mother had the means to provide her children with accommodation and that the children were not in need within the meaning of s.17.”
Community Care Blog, 22nd June 2017
Source: communitycare11kbw.com
‘Campaigners have launched a High Court challenge against the Government over the number of unaccompanied child refugees accepted into the UK under the Dubs scheme.’
The Independent, 20th June 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Following the Strasbourg Court’s request for interim measures for the UK – which means the hospital may not take Charlie Gard off life support as the Supreme Court has allowed it to do – the Supreme Court arranged a short hearing to take place Monday 19 June, to give directions. The Strasbourg Court has now put in place a further request that treatment and nursing care be continued beyond its original deadline of 19 June (see the press release from Strasbourg here: Gard and Others v. the UK) . This is because that Court has to consider the parents’ application that the case does not just concern Charlie’s right to die with dignity but their rights under Article 8 as his parents to be afforded respect for their decisions as to what is in Charlie’s interests.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th June 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Doctors have been told to continue providing life-support treatment to a terminally ill baby at the centre of a high-profile legal battle for another three weeks – to give judges at the European court of human rights time to analyse the case.’
The Guardian, 19th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘After significant controversy and substantial amendments, the Children and Social Work Act 2017 received royal assent on 27 April. While the majority of the legislation is not yet in force, the changes contained in the Act will have important implications for the regulation of social work in England, safeguarding of children, and investigations into the death of children. In addition, the Act clarifies and amends the obligations of local authorities as corporate parents.’
Community Care Blog, 14th June 2017
Source: communitycare11kbw.com
F v L (Child Arrangements Order: Relocation)[2017] EWHC 1377 (Fam)
‘The mother, an Italian national, sought a child arrangements order (“CAO”) under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as amended, in respect of the child, aged five, and permission to relocate with him to Italy, alleging serious domestic abuse by the father. The Italian father opposed the application for relocation and cross-applied for a shared care CAO. Despite the recommendation in the report prepared by the CAFCASS officer that the child’s main carer be his mother and that she should be given permission to relocate to Italy, the trial judge decided not to consider or make any finding in respect of the abuse allegations, refused the mother’s application to relocate and ordered the continuance of the shared care regime. The mother appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge had made a fundamental procedural error in failing to resolve the issue of the future care of the child prior to considering the application for relocation and had failed to make findings on the abuse allegations.’
WLR Daily, 9th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)[2017] EWCA Civ 410
‘C, a child aged nine months, suffered from a rare inherited mitochondrial disease which led to dysfunction of several of his organ systems. His condition had progressed since his birth resulting in irreversible brain damage and an inability to move his arms or legs or to breathe unaided. His life expectancy was measured in months. His parents sought to obtain an alternative treatment, known as nucleoside therapy, that was available in the United States of America. The NHS trust which ran the hospital where C was treated applied pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court for declarations that it was lawful and in C’s best interests for his artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only, and for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy. The judge granted the application and made the declarations sought, finding that the body of experienced medical opinion available to him, save for the doctor offering the nucleoside therapy, was unanimous to the effect that the prospect of nucleoside therapy having any benefit was effectively zero and would be futile. C’s parents sought permission to appeal on the grounds that (i) where parents put forward a viable treatment option for their child, that option could only be overriden by the court if it was established that the pursuit of that option was likely to cause the child to suffer “significant harm”, and the usual “best interests” test did not apply; and (ii) the judge had no jurisdiction to grant an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second clinical team from carrying out a treatment that the latter had offered in the reasonable exercise of its professional judgment.’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Judges would assess the developmental harm caused to a child when sentencing those convicted of child cruelty under proposals published by the Sentencing Council today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th June 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A woman who faked a paternity test to fool an ex-partner into believing he was her baby’s father has been jailed.’
BBC News, 12th June 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025