Search Results for: Children Act 1989 1(2)

Click the case name for better results:

In re K (Children) (Non-accidental injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence): CA 27 Aug 2004

The children had been taken into care, and freed for adoption. The mother appealed saying the blame for non-accidental injury was misplaced. The court had not thought her responsible for the non-accidental injuries, but she had been unwilling to separate from the assumed perpetrator. Held: The mother had now taken the step of breaking free. … Continue reading In re K (Children) (Non-accidental injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence): CA 27 Aug 2004

The Local Authority v RK and RU and Z (by her Children’s Guardian): FD 21 Aug 2008

Three elder brothers and sisters of Z had been taken into care after one suffered serious non-accidental injury. Before Z’s birth the authority planned for a placement, but had stayed with her parents for nearly a year subject to supervision in the hope that she could stay there. The evidence was that she could not … Continue reading The Local Authority v RK and RU and Z (by her Children’s Guardian): FD 21 Aug 2008

In Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions): CA 5 Jul 2001

It should be routine that, when presenting a case before a court to apply for a care order, the applicant authority should provide a written statement of the reasons, upon which it argued that the threshold conditions had been met. That statement should be based upon the evidence available at the time the decision to … Continue reading In Re G (Children) (Care Order: Evidence of Threshold Conditions): CA 5 Jul 2001

In Re B (A Minor: Contact Order): FD 8 Apr 1994

In a disputed contact case, the parties had agreed that their should be monitored interim access, and this was supported by the Court Welfare Officer. The magistrates declined to make an order fearing that this would delay the final order. Held: The Justices had been wrong to refuse to make the order. Delay would principally … Continue reading In Re B (A Minor: Contact Order): FD 8 Apr 1994

Re B (minors) (Care proceedings: practice): FD 1999

Section 31 and its associated emergency and interim provisions comprise the only court mechanism available to a local authority to protect a child from risk. The interpretation of the ‘attributable’ condition adopted by the House of Lords is necessary to avoid the unacceptable consequence that, if the court cannot identify which of a child’s carers … Continue reading Re B (minors) (Care proceedings: practice): FD 1999

In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008

Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having found some evidence to suggest that … Continue reading In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008

Re S (Minors)(Care Order: Appeal); Dyfed County Council v S, Re S (Discharge of Care Order): CA 6 Sep 1995

Discharge of care order is the appropriate procedure not an appeal after very long time. The court considered its approach in admitting new evidence on appeal in family law cases: ‘The willingness of the family jurisdiction to relax the ordinary rules of issue estoppel, and (at the appellate stage) the constraints of Ladd v Marshall … Continue reading Re S (Minors)(Care Order: Appeal); Dyfed County Council v S, Re S (Discharge of Care Order): CA 6 Sep 1995

A Local Authority v S and W and T By her Guardian: FD 27 May 2004

A child had died. The father was accused and acquitted of murder by way of shaken baby syndrome. The local authority persisted with an application for care orders for the other children. Held: ‘I do not claim to have divined truth. I have reached conclusions based on what I believe to have been proved to … Continue reading A Local Authority v S and W and T By her Guardian: FD 27 May 2004

British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others: FD 30 Mar 2007

Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and medical staffs’ and social workers’ names to be excised. Held: … Continue reading British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others: FD 30 Mar 2007

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

In re P (a minor by his mother and litigation friend); P v National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers: HL 27 Feb 2003

The pupil had been excluded from school but then ordered to be re-instated. The teachers, through their union, refused to teach him claiming that he was disruptive. The claimant appealed a refusal of an injunction. The injunction had been refused on the basis that this was an employment dispute. The union had failed successfully to … Continue reading In re P (a minor by his mother and litigation friend); P v National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers: HL 27 Feb 2003

Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 26 Apr 2004

The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers. Held: The Regulation was within the scope of the Directive. Though a member state had some freedom in implementing a … Continue reading Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 26 Apr 2004

Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another: HL 17 Feb 2000

A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal offence. Held: Nevertheless, the provision of such information was required in this case, … Continue reading Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another: HL 17 Feb 2000

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

Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm): CA 2001

Hale LJ said that ‘a comparatively small risk of really serious harm can justify action, while even the virtual certainty of slight harm might not’. Judges: Hale LJ Citations: [2001] 1 FLR 611 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Plymouth City Council v HM Coroner for the County … Continue reading Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm): CA 2001

Re G (Care proceedings: split trials): CA 2001

In a situation where an application is made for a care order, and the threshold criteria are met, but the court cannot decide which carer is responsible, the preferable interpretation is that in such cases the court is able to proceed at the welfare stage on the footing that each of the possible perpetrators is … Continue reading Re G (Care proceedings: split trials): CA 2001

Re B and W (Minors), Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others: CA 27 Jul 1999

The threshold conditions for the making of a care order, relate to the absence of proper care of a child, and the suffering of significant harm whilst in care arrangements then prevailing. There was no requirement on the court that it be able to apportion any direct responsibility for that harm to any individual person. … Continue reading Re B and W (Minors), Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others: CA 27 Jul 1999

Re B (Threshold Criteria): CA 9 Jun 1998

Where a supervision order was sought by local authority in respect of allegations made which were awaiting trial, and an order could be made before the criminal findings where enough was admitted by the carer to support the need for a supervision order. Citations: Gazette 01-Jul-1998 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Re B (Threshold Criteria): CA 9 Jun 1998

Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003

Re M (A Minor): CA 8 Nov 1993

For an order to be made, the child was to be continuing to suffer harm at the hearing date and the harm should resultant from the alleged lack of care. Citations: Ind Summary 08-Nov-1993 Statutes: Children Act 1989 31(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85819

Re M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions): HL 7 Jun 1994

The father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the child’s mother. Application was made for the child to be made subject to a care order. The father appealed refusal of an order. Held: When an application was made on the basis that a child was suffering significant harm after making interim … Continue reading Re M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions): HL 7 Jun 1994

Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria): SC 12 Jun 2013

B had been removed into care at birth. The parents now appealed against a care order made with a view to B’s adoption. The Court was asked as to the situation where the risks were necessarily only anticipated, and as to appeals against a finding of fact. Held: (Lady Hale dissenting) The appeal was dismissed. … Continue reading Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria): SC 12 Jun 2013

SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 18 Mar 2015

The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings of working households. The challenge was under the 1998 Act on the basis that … Continue reading SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 18 Mar 2015

Petrovic v Austria: ECHR 27 Mar 1998

The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8. Held: The application was dismissed. the court noted that, as society moved towards a more equal sharing of responsibilities … Continue reading Petrovic v Austria: ECHR 27 Mar 1998

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

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

London Borough of Redbridge v A, B and E (Failure To Comply With Directions): FD 17 Oct 2016

Authority’s Failure to comply with directions The court considered the failure by the local authority applicant repeatedly to comply with court orders whils applying for care orders. Held: ‘Case management directions are not mere administrative pedantry. The seemingly mundane nature of case management directions belies the fact that they are crucial to the fair administration … Continue reading London Borough of Redbridge v A, B and E (Failure To Comply With Directions): FD 17 Oct 2016

Pickstone v Freemans Plc: HL 30 Jun 1988

The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim failed. Held: The claim was not disbarred in this … Continue reading Pickstone v Freemans Plc: HL 30 Jun 1988

AM v Local Authority and Another; Re B-M (Care Orders): CA 16 Mar 2009

The father sought leave to appeal against care orders made in respect of his three children. The family were Pakistani Pathan muslims. There had been disputes and violence within the extended family. One family member sought protection but was now alleged herself to be responsible for threats and violence. After a fire, the children were … Continue reading AM v Local Authority and Another; Re B-M (Care Orders): CA 16 Mar 2009

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

Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria): FD 2007

Toleration of Diverse Parenting Standards Hedley J considered the meaning of ‘significant harm’: ‘What about the court’s approach . . to the issue of significant harm? In order to understand this concept and the range of harm that it’s intended to encompass, it is right to begin with issues of policy. Basically it is the … Continue reading Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria): FD 2007

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