B had been taken from her parents at birth, the local authority anticipating a risk of harm. The mother had suffered violence at the hands of the father, and also had convictions for dishonesty and making false allegations. The judge had made a care order in relation to B on the basis of a care plan that she should be placed for adoption. she was placed with a foster mother on what was intended to be a short-term basis, but continued pending the appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had made management decisions within the range of permissible, and the conclusions on the evidence, both accepting certain parts and rejecting others, were supported within that evidence. He had given proper allowance for the mother’s tendency to lie.
Though not dissenting, Black and Lewsion LJJ thought the case came close to the limit of proper interference by the state. Their task was to decide whether the judge’s decision should be disturbed, and not whether they might have made the same decision.
Judges:
Rix, Black, Lewison LJJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 1475
Links:
Statutes:
Children Act 1989 31(2), European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Human Rights
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465795
