The court set out precepts to be followed by courts in preparing for care proceedings so as to ensure that they did not infringe the rights of the family to respect for their family life under article 8.
Munby J said: ‘ . . it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which judges of this Division are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. It is a terrible thing to say to any parent – particularly, perhaps, to a mother – that he or she is to lose their child for ever.’
Munby J
[2002] 2 FLR 730
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – NJ v Essex County Council and Another; In re J (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial); Re J (a child) (care proceedings: fair trial) CA 11-May-2006
The family complained that the local authority had, in assessing the need for a care order, failed to follow the guideliens set down in In Re L, leading to an infringement of their human rights.
Held: Neither in the lower court nor here had . .
Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Human Rights
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.242870
