The Prison Service’s policy of refusing to allow children over the age of eighteen months to stay with their mother in prison was lawful. The impairment of family life was an inevitable and inherent part of the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. The policy was to designed allow for the protection of children’s interests so far as possible. The use of a fixed age allowed proper preparation, and consistency of facilities, and there was nothing in the policy to prevent consideration of the individual circumstances in particular cases. There were arguments both for lowering the age so as to minimise the damage by occasioning it when the bond between mother and child was less, and otherwise.
Citations:
Times 01-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] 3 FCR 416, [2001] FLR 1122
Statutes:
Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728), Children Act 1989 1, Prison Act 1952
Cited by:
Cited – C and Another v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council FD 18-Jul-2002
Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it . .
Cited – C and Another v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council FD 18-Jul-2002
Where a children case involving a challenge to a care plan or the placement of children in care would raise issues under the Human Rights legislation, the case should normally be heard before a High Court judge of the Family Division. If possible it . .
Cited – Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85996
