header-logo header-logo

10 May 2013
Issue: 7559 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings—Orders in family proceedings—Care order

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll