In a ‘remote’ final hearing of care proceedings, Mostyn J approved the Local Authority’s care plan for the child, EK, to be made subject to Care and Placement Orders. David Sharp represented the child, through his Children’s Guardian. For Eleanor Clotworthy‘s article on the procedural issues raised by conducting the hearing remotely by Skype for Business, published online by “It’s a Lawyer’s Life”, please click here
This was the first full tirla of care proceedings by Skype.
Deprivation of liberty orders should only be made if a child’s current circumstances justify the making of one. They should not be made on a contingent or anticipatory basis for such unspecified time when a child’s circumstances deteriorate.
Robin Powell, representing the Local Authority, successfully appealed against a finding made by the Judge at first instance that four rib fractures suffered by a baby were sustained accidentally by overlying while co-sleeping with her mother. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for rehearing. To read a full case summary, please click here
Joan Connell represented the children through their Children’s Guardian in a case in which the children’s mother had been murdered by their father. The court had to determine which of two family members, one paternal and one maternal, should care for the children throughout their minority and also issues of contact with the father in prison. The court also considered the legal principles to be applied in circumstances where a person found guilty of an offence refuses to accept the outcome of the criminal trial.
The court approved the Children’s Guardian’s recommendation for the child to return to the care of the mother under the auspices of a Supervision Order. The Judgment carefully considers the evaluation of risk in cases relating to past alcohol misuse and the duties of the Local Authority to identify and provide appropriate support.
Successful appeal against findings of fact made by the court at first instance, where the trial judge was criticised for not applying the correct test for the identification of perpetrators of significant harm. The case raises an important principle about the proper approach to take when identifying perpetrators and the risk of effectively reversing the burden of proof
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order in financial remedy proceedings directly against a discretionary trust, of which the husband was a potential beneficiary, to make a lump sum payment to the wife. The judge had had no power under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s.23(1) to make such an order against a third party.