Care Proceedings Flashcards
Re X: Re Y
Would there be serious harm if children were allowed to go to Syria?
Baby P
P had been seen by various professionals 78 times, at child protection conference decided that his injuries were bad enough to start care proceedings, but instead was returned to his mother and died shortly afterwards. Serious case review found that a lot of changes suggested after Victoria Climbie’s death hadn’t been implemented.
Re MA
Crossing threshold for one child doesn’t mean that it will be crossed for all children. In this case although one child was abused enough to be taken into care, the other children weren’t being significantly harmed. Is harm significant enough to justify state intervention and interference with autonomy of parents? This decision was much criticised.
Re L
Emergency proceedings were started because of allegations that father whipped children. Held - it is a consequence of society that some children will receive better care than others, state should only interfere exceptionally, would be unwise to attempt an all embracing definition of harm, threshold may be low, but requires more than commonplace human failure on inadequacy.
Re M
Wife murdered in front of children, applied for care proceedings, but children lived with mother’s cousin so no harm at the time of the hearing. HoL looked back at harm.
Re H
2 daughters with former husband, 2 with present husband. Eldest daughter claimed sexual abuse against step-father, what was standard of proof? HoL - likely means a real possibility, one that cannot be ignored. The more improbable the event, the stronger the evidence must be (majority view). Overturned by B (sexual abuse).
Re B
Many allegations made against other members of the family, “allegation culture”, unable to conclude a “real possibility” of harm, Likely means a real possibility, one that cannot be ignored, findings must be based on facts proven on the balance of probabilities. The more significant the harm, the less likely its occurrence need be.
Lancashire CC v B
Harm could have been caused by parents or childminder, care proceedings could be successful without establishing who was responsible for the harm. Requiring proof of who caused the harm would put an unjustifiable burden on LAs.
Re S-B
Correct approach - judge should look to establish responsibility on the balance of probabilities, or if not, whether there was a real possibility that a particular person was involved. Future predictions must be proven on the balance of probabilities, predictions require a degree of likelihood.
Medway Council v M and T
LA didn’t support family properly, didn’t understand law, used temporary arrangement under s20, no court involvement. Infringed Human Rights.
In the matter of LA
Re L did not alter the law, merely restated it.
Plymouth City Council v G
Children had suffered emotional harm, likely to suffer physical harm. Held trial judge was right to have refused placement orders, but shouldn’t have made CO, should have adjourned proceedings and made interim orders.
Re G
Argument that children were at risk of harm. Held that court could take into account all relevant information available at the time of the hearing, date at which threshold had to be crossed and date at which LA first intervened. Later events could be admitted if they were capable of showing that there was significant harm.
B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof)
Reconsidered Re H. Basic civil standard of proof should apply, regardless of seriousness of allegations or consequences.
Re J (children)
Is there likelihood of harm if parent previously harmed another child? Held that possibility that parent harmed in the past not sufficient, prediction of future harm must be based on facts proven on the balance of probabilities. Importance of threshold test to protect families from unwanted intrusion.
