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.
Following a five day hearing, the Court declined to make final care orders in respect of three of the four children of the first respondent, ("the mother"), namely W who is aged 13, V who is aged 11 and U who is aged 6. We now set out our reasons.
The Minister's application for a care order in respect of the elder child X, who is aged 15, was adjourned until 28 th July, 2014, because of the sudden illness of her lawyer, Advocate Tremoceiro, on the eve of the hearing. He had sole conduct of her case and had built up a good working relationship with her. The adjournment was in accordance with her wishes (the Court having spoken to her in chambers).
The Court had earlier ordered the appointment of a guardian, Mrs Elsa Fernandes, and a legal representative, Advocate Heath, for all four children, but it had become clear that the views of X and W would diverge both from the guardian and each other, and they were therefore appointed their own legal representatives.
W and V's father, Mr C, died in 2004. X's father has never had any contact with her. He is reported to be living in Scotland and to be married with a son.
(i) A history of domestic abuse with different relationships, more latterly with the second respondent, B.
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.