Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The second part of this judgment will address the regrettable circumstances which led to the adjournment of the first and ineffective final hearing listed before me last November, and my consideration of whether the local authority should bear the costs of that wasted hearing due to the numerous flaws in its application for a placement order.
This application for a care order and an application for an order for contact with a child in care are governed by the Children Act 1989.�
A�s welfare is paramount and no order should be made unless it is in her interests. �Delay is to be avoided as inimical to those interests.
In this case, I have seen an agreed Final Threshold document dated 30 October 2019 which briefly summarises the position as follows: �A is likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm and her needs being unmet as her parents are not requesting her return to their care due to their being unable to meet A�s long term complex care needs.�
I must consider the factors set out in section 1 Children Act 1989, known as the welfare checklist:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.