Last Minute Flashcards
Re S-B
Child taken at birth due to mother having been in a pool of perpetrators for before. Was taken on grounds that the new child was likely to suffer significant harm.
Court held that this did not meet the balance of probabilities, and as such was wrong thing to do. Real possibility? Yes, but that’s not enough.
Require a direct and unequivocal link
Re J
Similar facts to Re S-B, court clarified that you need a direct and unequivocal link to the person in order to use it as basis.
Can’t be ruling off suspicion.
Wilson: Pool has no value
Re X
Mother complained son has stomach pains. Believed she has fictitious illness syndrome. Used an EPO.
Court: Wrong thing to do, why use an EPO when there was no imminent threat/emergency?
Surrey CC v MFE
Parents have baby who has high amount of needs, have a care team and lots of equipment. Relationship with care team breaks down, and parents suspected of cutting cord on support machine.
LA go with police and get them to sign a Section 20 agreement, or they will take them away.
Court: Wrong thing to do, should have used an EPO as it was the right form in the moment. Parents were “coerced into an enforced section 20 agreement, which was not the intent of Section 20”
A v East Sussex
Case where the use of the police powers was “not ideal” but in the circumstances not disproportionate or unlawful as the mother had the ability to remove the child from the hospital otherwise.
“Damned if you do damned if you don’t”
Re B
Re B-S
Both cases talked about how adoption orders that are against the consent of the parents are thoroughly extreme, and should only be used as a last resort.
Got clarity about it in Re R though, where the judge clarified that adoption has always been seen as a last resort, and these cases change nothing. A judge should follow a logical process whereby he is able to conclude that there is no less interventionist measure which could achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Sheffield v E
Case in which claimant lacked capacity to marry.
Marriage was considered a mere contract in this case.
Questions which should be asked:
Was E able to comprehend the nature of the contract?
Did E understand duties and responsibilities that normally attached to marriage?
Sharbatly v Shagroon
Islamic ceremony in a hotel!
No attempt to comply, and therefore was considered a non-marriage
