header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Care proceedings

Re J (children) (care proceedings: past ‘possible perpetrators’ in new family unit) [2013] UKSC 9, [2013] All ER (D) 232 (Feb)

A real possibility that a parent had harmed a child in the past was not, by itself, sufficient to establish the likelihood that that parent would cause harm to another child in the future. The findings of harm caused in the past might be relied on only to the extent that they might be relevant to the issue the court had to decide. A prediction of future harm based on what had happened in the past would only be justified if one could link what had happened in the past directly and unequivocally with the person and the new family unit in whose care the subsequent child was living or would live. Where the person who harmed a child could not be identified, the threshold could not be met in relation to another child solely on the basis that a possible perpetrator of the harm was involved in the care of that child unless all possible

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll