header-logo header-logo

Assessment matters

08 December 2017 / David Burrows
Issue: 7773 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7773_burrows

David Burrows presents a master class in child understanding & capacity

  • Assessment of a child’s understanding is complementary to law in relation to understanding under Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Gillick remains the basis for assessment of understanding.
  • Understanding is issue-specific: it must be tested according to the issue in hand and with all age-appropriate information available.

In Re S (Child as Parent: Adoption: Consent) [2017] EWHC 2729 (Fam) Cobb J sets out the legal framework for professional assessment of understanding of the process and effect of adoption for a mother, S, who is ‘under 16 years of age’. She suffers from ‘developmental delay and learning difficulties’ ([2]). She has not seen her child T whom she wants adopted. ‘Child’ is defined as a person not yet 18 (Children Act 1989 (CA 1989), s 105(1)), though this article is concerned mostly with a child of under 16.

The case is of significance more widely than to capacity and adoption. It reviews the question of understanding and Gillick -competence in children proceedings generally, though

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll