header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 May 2013
Issue: 7559 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings—Orders in family proceedings—Care order

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

X County Council v a mother and others [2013] EWHC 953 (Fam)

Family Division, Baker J, 25 Apr 2013

The Family Division has held that it is not in the interests of two young children the subject of interim care orders to be subjected to genetic screening for Huntingdon’s Disease (HD).

David Reynolds for the authority. Caroline Baker for the mother. Sally Barnett for the father. Christopher Watson for the children’s guardian.

The application before the court concerned two young boys, aged three and one. Their family was referred to social services in January 2012. Their father admitted having been violent to the mother. He also stated that his mother and brother suffered from Huntingdon’s Disease (HD), a hereditary disorder of the central nervous system caused by a defective gene on chromosome IV. The symptoms usually arose between the ages of 30 and 50, though they could do so earlier. The extent of the symptoms varied from person to person. In the later states of the disease the physical and mental disabilities

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll