Click the case name for better results:

Southwark London Borough Council v B and Others: FD 29 Jul 1998

The date for consideration of whether the first or second threshold criteria had been met for care was when application made, or if continuous temporary arrangements for care made, from the date those arrangements were installed. Consistency between limbs was required. Citations: Gazette 26-Aug-1998, Times 29-Jul-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Southwark London Borough Council v B and Others: FD 29 Jul 1998

Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General: CA 1993

The court rejected an argument that ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ in the subsection was to be equated with ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Citations: [1993] 1 FLR 28 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Applied – In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings) FD 2-Jan-1993 It was again argued … Continue reading Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General: CA 1993

In re H and R (Minors): CA 1994

An allegation had been made by a daughter of sexual abuse against her step-father. Despite his acquittal, the local authority went ahead with an application for a care order. The authority now appealed against a finding that it had not established a risk to the children to a sufficient standard. Held: The appeal failed. The … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors): CA 1994

In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings): FD 2 Jan 1993

It was again argued that ‘likely’ meant more probable than not. Held: The argument was not open to the appellants in the light of Newham London Borough Council. Thorpe J [1993] 1 FLR 824 Children Act 1989 31(2)(a) England and Wales Citing: Applied – Newham London Borough Council v Attorney-General CA 1993 The court rejected … Continue reading In re A (A Minor) (Care Proceedings): FD 2 Jan 1993

In re M and R (Child abuse: Expert Evidence): CA 21 May 1996

On an application for a care order the judge found there was a real possibility that sexual abuse had occurred but the evidence was not sufficient to prove the allegations to the requisite standard. The threshold criteria were met on another ground. The children had suffered emotional harm at the hands of the mother and … Continue reading In re M and R (Child abuse: Expert Evidence): CA 21 May 1996

In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still been been found. Held: A care order could … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995