EPOs Flashcards
In the matter of B-C (A Child)
No right of appeal of EPOs, can seek judicial review.
P, C and S v UK
P’s son was in protective custody in USA, possible Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Breached conditions, came to the UK, married and became pregnant. s47 investigation sought application to have child removed at birth. 2 days into case P’s legal team withdrew as she was requiring them to conduct their case unreasonably. Care order was made, baby placed for adoption. P applied for leave to appeal, refused. ECtHR application, breach of Articles 6 and 8, breaches found.
Nottingham CC v LM, DW, LW
About removing babies at birth - LA in this case found to have serious failings, article 8 rights were concerned.
X County Council v B (EPOs)
4 children, mother met with LA but wouldn’t discuss care, EPO made for three children, the eldest (17) wouldn’t comply, after three months in care youngest child lived with grandparents, then allowed to move home. Care plans presented to court. Court discussed guidance for what to do when considering application for an EPO. Includes - exceptional justification needed, awareness of extreme gravity, least interventionist solution.
Re X (EPOs)
Child presented at hospital, LA believed mother to have Munchausen syndrome by proxy, court considered application for EPO to be flawed, should consider list from X CC v B
Surrey CC v MF & E
Child had health problems, mother had disagreements with health workers, s20 agreement was used, child removed from mother’s care. LA applied for care order, 9 days in withdrew application, had clearly misunderstood issues.
Langley and others v Liverpool CC and others
Father drove children despite being registered blind. An EPO was sought and granted, however police removed children under s46. Held that s46 powers shouldn’t be used where there is an EPO.
A v East Sussex
Mother anxious with post natal depression, hospital worried about possible Munchausen syndrome by proxy, s46 powers used to move baby to foster home. Claim under s7 HRA, authorities held to have had other options available, however judge was entitled to take the view that he did.
Manchester CC v DK, JY, BK and FK
Children aged 2 and 11 months, care order, placement orders, court considered welfare
MA v London Borough of Camden
Revocation of PO? Best interests of child considered, assessment of the future interests of child considered, all relevant circumstances had been considered.
Re B (A Child)
Placement order revoked as mother had changed circumstances.
Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings - Threshold Criteria)
Mother had suffered sexual abuse, eventually had two children as a result of the abuse. One child taken into care. Mother entered a relationship with convicted criminal, had contact with child, should child be adopted or be with mother and partner? Held - court had been correct to make the care order with a view to adoption, parents personalities and M’s disorder raised a real possibility that child would suffer impairment of emotional development if left in their care. Adoption orders are only made as a last resort. Courts are reluctant to interfere with a lower court’s finding of evidence.
A and S v Lancashire CC
Two boys aged 14 and 16 had been moved from foster placement to foster placement even though they had been freed for adoption, failed by system, human rights infringed.
London Borough of Sutton v Gray and Butler
CoA overturned ruling against parents, told LA to leave parents alone, relied on evidence from 1 medical practitioner that the injuries to the child might have been accidental. However - postscript to the case - child was later killed by parents.
Re B-S
Mother appealed against refusal to grant her leave to oppose adoption of children. Dismissing the appeal - adoption without consent is an extremely draconian measure which requires the highest level of evidence.
