header-logo header-logo

20 June 2014
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice—Family proceedings—Injunctions

Re DE (a Child) [2014] EWFC 6, [2014] All ER (D) 72 (Jun)

Family Division, Baker J, 23 May 2014

The Family Division has issued guidance on care proceedings under the Children Act 1989.

Deirdre Fottrell for the father. Hayley Griffiths for the authority. Lucy Sprinz for the mother. Kambiz Moradifar for the third respondent by his children’s guardian.

The proceedings concerned a child, D, who was born in 2011. The local authority started care proceedings under s 31 of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). After he was discharged from hospital, D and his parents underwent a 16-week residential placement in a local authority foster placement which was completed successfully. Subsequently, the local authority developed concerns and concluded that D should be removed from his parents’ care to foster carers. A hearing on April took place where the father was encouraged to apply for an injunction, which he did under s 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). The judge refused the application for an injunction and the father applied

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll