Cases Flashcards
learn
Re S (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); Re W (Adequacy of Care Plan) [2002]
S.31.3(a): Court cannot make a final order until it has approved the permanence provisions in the care plan
R v Canning
Physical evidence. Dangers in placing excessive weight on opinions of experts in the field
B v Torbay [2007]
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
Re W
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
Vulnerable Witnesses & Children working group
Video interview evidence. Where a child is unwilling to give live evidence it is rare they will have to
Re H and R (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [1996]
The standard of proof. Held doubts could not provide proper basis that the standard is met. Standard is balance of probabilities
Re B (standard of proof) [2008]
The standard of proof. No gloss- no heightened standard of proof for more serious allegations
Re U (standard of proof); Re B [2004]
Comparison with criminal proceedings. Held standard of proof would not be raised
Re M (Threshold conditions) [1994]
Threshold criteria: ‘is suffering’. The date at which the child must be suffering significant harm is the date which L/A initiated care proceedings
Re G (Care Proceedings) [2001]
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
Re A [2006]
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
Re H
Threshold criteria- ‘likely to suffer’. A real possibility, a possibility that could not sensibly be ignored
Suspicion is insufficient basis
Re L.K
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
Re N
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
Re C
Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. Confirmed child witnessing constant parental arguments could could amount to harm
Re L
Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. Rejection that emotional harm could be seen as less serious than physical harm
Re V
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
Re B
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
Re MA (Care: Threshold) [2009]
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
Re D
Threshold criteria- ‘significant harm’. What amounts to significant harm should not depend on the child’s cultural or ethnic background
Islington Borough Council v Al Alas [2012]
Harm attributable. The injuries of the child were the result of a medical condition and not the care of the parents → threshold not met
Re D
Harm attributable.Objective test. Parents care is compared with a hypothetical reasonable parents
Lancashire CC v B
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
North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003]
Unknown perpetrators. Test should be whether you include someone in the pool and for that there should be a real possibility
