Munby J said: ‘If a baby is to be removed from its mother, one would normally expect arrangements to be made by the local authority to facilitate contact on a regular basis . . Those arrangements must be driven by the needs of the family, not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods.’
Judges:
Munby J
Citations:
[2003] 2 FLR 171, [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin)
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (S) v Haringey London Borough Council QBD 13-Nov-2003
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus in respect of her four children who had been removed by the police, and were residing with the local authority under interim care orders. She said they were held against their wills.
Held: The . .
Explained – In re S (a child) (Care proceedings: Contact) FD 5-Jul-2005
The one month old baby had been taken into the care of the local authority. The authority appealed the extent of contact with the baby.
Held: The appeal failed. It was not wholly improper to allow for the practicalities of arranging such . .
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottingham City Council Admn 1-Feb-2008
The respondent authority had removed the child from the mother at birth but without first obtaining any court authority. The court had made a peremptory order for the return of the child. The court explained its actions.
Held: Neither social . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Judicial Review
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188378