Both the Local authority and the child’s Guardian ad litem argued for the child to be removed from the mother before the final hearing to protect from the harm which the presence of the mother’s partner undubitably risked. The mother responded by saying she needed support to help her separate from him and she sought a residential assessment.
Held: The assessment was ordered. The apparent assumption by the Authority and by the guradian that all that was needed to be demonstrated by them was that the interim threshold were conditions were met, for removal should follow as night follows day, was fundamentally incorrect: ‘That is a profound error of perception that regrettably on the facts of this case amounts also to an error of law. Nowhere is there a recognition that removal is a separate consideration from the existence of the interim threshold or the need for an interim order’. The applicants had failed to consider whether the particular risk required the separation requested.
He set out the applicable priinciples
Judges:
Ryder J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 3404 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 575, [2008] Fam Law 399
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re H (A Child) (Interim Care Order) CA 12-Dec-2002
Once the threshhold criteria for a care order have been met, the court must still enquire on an application for an interim care order, as to whether there is an imminent risk of really serious harm to the child, whether the risk to the child’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279032