not being given what it would be reasonably expected Flashcards
What about an accidental unavoidable accident
this should not justify the making of a CA
How is the parent judged
Re D (CA): objectively, It is abundantly clear that a parent may unhappily fail to provide reasonable care even though he is doing his incompetent best
cannot discriminate against disabilities
A LA v GG: cannot turn into substituted care .
Must be sensitive to social and cultural issues
Re B; Re K: The court must evaluate parental performance by reference to the objective standard of the hypothetical reasonable parent. But the court cannot ignore underlying cultural, social or religious realities.
The harm must be attributable to failure in parental care not
a deficiency in parental character Re A: - The father … when he was 17 … had sexual intercourse on one occasion with a girl who was 13 and accepted a formal caution from the police in relation to this offence and a member of the English Defence League. “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be a less than suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order let alone adoption. We must guard against the risk of social engineering”
Re D (Jamaican mother)
It would concern me if the same event could give rise in one case to a finding of significant harm and in another to a finding to the contrary [because of cultural variations in attitudes to corporal punishment]. On the other hand … if a child can say to himself or herself “my brothers, sisters and friends are all treated in this way from time to time: it seems to be part of life”, that child may suffer less emotional harm than a child who perceives himself or herself to be a unique victim.
What must a reasonable parent be assessed by the standards of what
but at law need to judge by reference to normal men and women in contemporary English society. They have made their life in this country and cannot impose their own views wither on the LA or on the courts. Re JS
Cases of radicalisation
A LA v M, London Tower Hamlets BC v B, Re Y
A LA v M
The mother exposed the children to radical views on Islamic fundamentalism and has thereby exposed the children to a risk of emotional and psychological harm in that she brought the children to a number of demonstrations where they were exposed to adult issues … and where they associated with convicted violent people all of whom share the mother’s views. That the mother had shared her extreme beliefs with the children there can also sadly be no doubt either. C, in foster care, expressed terrible views about, for example, the Paris attacks
London Borough Tower Hamlets
- The emotional damage she has sustained as a direct consequence of seemingly unlimited access to images of appalling human depravity, including mass killings and sadistic torture has left her inured to human suffering. In her evidence I asked her about some well publicised and notorious killings. She responded to these questions in the same way that she had described the videos, which I can only relate as revealing a chilling lack of empathy to the victims. The violation contemplated here is not to the body but it is to the mind. It is every bit as insidious [as sexual abuse], and I do not say that lightly. It involves harm of similar magnitude and complexion.
Re Y
- A teenage boy had grown up in a family where the men were committed to waging Jihad in Syria. Two of his brothers and a friend had already been killed there and his uncle was detained in Guantanamo bay. The LA was concerned that, unless steps were taken, he would also go to fight in Syria:
The process of radicalisation that goes on within families committed to this type of belief … is strikingly similar to the process of grooming that one sees in the context of sexual abuse. Here we are concerned with ‘distorted belief’ but it is nonetheless pervasive and challenging to resist.
