Cases

Question 1

Re S (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); Re W (Adequacy of Care Plan) [2002]

Answer 1

S.31.3(a): Court cannot make a final order until it has approved the permanence provisions in the care plan

Question 2

R v Canning

Answer 2

Physical evidence. Dangers in placing excessive weight on opinions of experts in the field

Question 3

B v Torbay [2007]

Answer 3

Video interview evidence. Judge said, if he had been called to court, instead of video, he could have been cross examined and found abuse wasn’t true

Question 4

Re W

Answer 4

Video interview evidence. No longer a presumption against giving live evidence in court, the court has to carry out a balancing act of advantages of live evidence v child’s welfare

Question 5

Vulnerable Witnesses & Children working group

Answer 5

Video interview evidence. Where a child is unwilling to give live evidence it is rare they will have to

Question 6

Re H and R (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [1996]

Answer 6

The standard of proof. Held doubts could not provide proper basis that the standard is met. Standard is balance of probabilities

Question 7

Re B (standard of proof) [2008]

Answer 7

The standard of proof. No gloss- no heightened standard of proof for more serious allegations

Question 8

Re U (standard of proof); Re B [2004]

Answer 8

Comparison with criminal proceedings. Held standard of proof would not be raised

Question 9

Re M (Threshold conditions) [1994]

Answer 9

Threshold criteria: ‘is suffering’. The date at which the child must be suffering significant harm is the date which L/A initiated care proceedings

Question 10

Re G (Care Proceedings) [2001]

Answer 10

Threshold criteria: ‘is suffering’- new evidence. Held the L/A can rely on facts which subsequently came to light to demonstrate that at the time the L/A intervened the child was suffering significant harm, even if they do not know of those facts at the time

Question 11

Re A [2006]

Answer 11

Threshold criteria: ‘is suffering’- new evidence. If it was in existence at the time of the proceedings were started, then it can be taken into account

Question 12

Re H

Answer 12

Threshold criteria- ‘likely to suffer’. A real possibility, a possibility that could not sensibly be ignored
Suspicion is insufficient basis

Question 13

Re L.K

Answer 13

Threshold criteria- ‘likely to suffer’. Added that the nature & gravity of feared harm were relevant in deciding whether the risk way one that could not sensibly be ignored

Question 14

Re N

Answer 14

Threshold criteria- ‘likely to suffer’. Bracewell J stressed the court way not restricted to looking at harm in the immediate future, but could also consider longer term harms

Question 15

Re C

Answer 15

Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. Confirmed child witnessing constant parental arguments could could amount to harm

Question 16

Re L

Answer 16

Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. Rejection that emotional harm could be seen as less serious than physical harm

Question 17

Re V

Answer 17

Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. Protective mother keeping him at home instead of special school amounted to harm, even though she way acting from the best of motives

Question 18

Re B

Answer 18

Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. Did not define significant. Can be the result of several minor harms
Also found the deficiency must be about child not about the parents character- care courts shouldn’t do social engineering

Question 19

Re MA (Care: Threshold) [2009]

Answer 19

Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. To amount to significant harm, the harm had to be significant enough to justify the intervention of the state under art 8
Eldest child was hit but not significant ham bc reasonable physical chastisement of children is not awful
Case shows how difficult it is to determine significant harm

Question 20

Re D

Answer 20

Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. What amounts to significant harm should not depend on the child’s cultural or ethnic background

Question 21

Islington Borough Council v Al Alas [2012]

Answer 21

Harm attributable. The injuries of the child were the result of a medical condition and not the care of the parents → threshold not met

Question 22

Re D

Answer 22

Harm attributable.Objective test. Parents care is compared with a hypothetical reasonable parents

Question 23

Lancashire CC v B

Answer 23

Unknown perpetrators. Childminder case. in an unknown perpetrator case. If it was clear that either of the parents or the primary carers caused the harm, it is held attributable to the parents care, even though court can’t make a finding of fact of who caused the harm

Question 24

North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003]

Answer 24

Unknown perpetrators. Test should be whether you include someone in the pool and for that there should be a real possibility

Question 25

S. B [2009]

Answer 25

Unknown perpetrator & unharmed sibling. Proceedings for one actual suffering and the other for likely to suffer. Held threshold wasn’t crossed for unharmed sibling because it way unknown perpetrators

Question 26

Re J

Answer 26

Unknown perpetrator & unharmed sibling. Confirmed approach: threshold not crossed for children of mum who may be a possible perpetrator of having killed her other child
H/e supreme court considered if person was in a pool of perpetrators but there were other circumstances it might be different. Court has to carry out a review of all available circumstances

Question 27

Re O and N [2003]

Answer 27

Unknown risks. s.1(3)(3) if threshold is crossed for eg. emotional abuse it cannot be crossed for sexual abuse. Lord Nicholls: cannot take into account unproven risks at the welfare stage

Question 28

Re D

Answer 28

Care or Supervision Order. Suggests factors for the court to consider where the balance between the two orders are equal

Question 29

Re o

Answer 29

Care or Supervision Order. Supervision order requires cooperation so is appropriate only if at least a reasonable relationship between the parents & L/A

Question 30

Re V

Answer 30

Care or Supervision Order. Where L/A wishes to acquired PR, a care order is appropriate

Question 31

Re BS and Re G

Answer 31

Care or Supervision Order. Look at all realistic options to determine which was least interventionist order and protect child’s welfare- a supervision order may adequately protect child’s welfare

Question 32

Re B

Answer 32

Care or Supervision Order. Care order should be a last resort

Question 33

Re T

Answer 33

Care or Supervision Order. There was hostility towards the L/A inquiries and rejected any help. Real concern that a supervision order would not work

Question 34

Re M (Care Order)

Answer 34

Care or Supervision Order. L/A can intervene at speed if anything goes wrong.

Question 35

Oxfordshire County Council v L

Answer 35

Care or Supervision Order. Where cooperation between L/A and parents have proven useful- SO would be preferable

Question 36

Re O (Supervision Order) [2001]

Answer 36

ECHR. Min order necessary. SO was sufficient

Question 37

Re G (a child) [2013]

Answer 37

ECHR. Court needs to take a holistic, global assessment of all the options and need to consider all of the options alongside each other