fbpx

Child Protection More Important Than Family Togetherness

2nd January 2017 By Arman Khosravi

Family judges are used to controversy and accept the fact that there will always be an embittered few who accuse them of ‘playing God’. However, one striking case shows that they will only break up families when doing so is necessary to ensure the long-term welfare of children and where there is no other viable option.

Social workers had long expressed deep concern about three young children whose mother suffered from cognitive and physical limitations. The youngest child had a history of disturbed behaviour, including threatening teachers and exposing himself. The boy, who was aged under ten, had punched, scratched and kicked adults and children alike, including his two older siblings.

In ruling on the local authority’s application for full care orders in respect of all three children, a judge found that the mother’s undoubted love for them was not sufficient to make her a good enough parent. She and the children’s father had shown an almost total absence of insight into the emotional harm that the children had suffered.

The father, in particular, insisted that there was nothing wrong with his parenting, but the judge noted that the case was a stark illustration of two parents simply not being equipped to provide proper care or boundaries for their children. Although the children had said that they wanted to live with their parents, no very significant weight could be attached to the wishes and feelings of three such damaged youngsters.

In making the care orders sought and ruling that the children should remain in long-term foster care, the judge found that their parents were simply unable to meet their physical, emotional and other needs. They had been given many chances to prove themselves as parents but had shown themselves incapable of providing an adequate home for their children.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...