In re P, Q, R and S (Children); FC 5 Dec 2014

References: [2014] EWFC B166
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lynch HHJ
Applications for adoptive placment.
Held: ‘P, Q, R and S have suffered and are likely to suffer significant harm, which harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to them if the order was not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. The court is satisfied of this because it finds that the children have experienced family life shaped by inadequate parenting, such that their physical and emotional needs including their need for stability and consistency have been neglected, and as a result the children have suffered. In particular:
1. The parents’ relationship is volatile and chaotic. It involves serious allegation and counter allegation followed by withdrawal and reconciliation.
2. The children have frequently been present and involved in the situation when one parent makes allegations against the other and these are often in aggressive terms.
3. The children have experienced instability at home as a result of parental conflict, home moves, change of carer and separation from siblings.
4. The parents’ relationships with professionals are volatile and chaotic. The parents’ refusal to work with professionals has impacted negatively upon the children’s welfare.
5. The children have lived with parents whose mental health/emotional stability significantly fluctuates. Their mental health difficulties have impacted upon their ability to meet the needs of their children consistently.
6. All of the above has had a significant and negative impact on the emotional and physical welfare of the children. All the children have had their welfare neglected and have suffered harm whilst in the care of their parents.
7. The parents have shown no acceptance or understanding of the inadequacies in the way they way they have parented their children or the adverse impact this has had and would have in the future on their children. It is therefore likely that if the children return to the care of their parents they will suffer further emotional and physical harm as a result of neglect of their welfare needs.’

Crowhurst And Mary His Wife v Laverack; 20 Nov 1852

References: [1852] EngR 1029, (1852) 8 Exch 208, (1852) 155 ER 1322
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Baron Parke
The father and mother of an illegitimate child entered into an agreement for the maintenance of the child. He was to contribute on the basis that she would otherwise care for the child. The mother later married, and she and the father now sought payment for necessaries for the child.
Held: If the agreement purported to oblige the father to make payments if the mother agreed to support the child, then there was no consideration for the agreement, but if it was her agreement to take sole support of without affiliating the child, there would be good consideration.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ward -v- Byham CA (Bailii, [1956] EWCA Civ 1, [1956] 2 All ER 318, [1956] 1 WLR 496)
    The parties were the parents of an illegitimate daughter. The child lived with the father at first, but the mother requested the child to be returned to her. The father agreed subject to a letter saying: ‘Mildred, I am prepared to let you have Carol . .