A (Final Hearing: Threshold not met), Re

Mr R Harris (instructed by Hertfordshire Legal Services) for the Applicant Ms J Gilliatt (instructed by Crane and Staples) for the 1st Respondent Mr M Roscoe (instructed by R A Savage and Co) for the 2nd Respondent Mr M Stott (instructed by Hepburn Delaney) for the Guardian Hearing dates: 17th � 26th September 2018 Judgement handed down 12th October 2018 ____________________

15.�That approach was endorsed by the Supreme Court in In re B. There are two passages in the judgments of the Justices which develop the point and to which I need to draw particular attention. The first is in the judgment of Lord Wilson of Culworth JSC where he said (para 28):

'many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or "model" them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.'

"We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs."

16.�I respectfully agree with all of that. It follows that I also agree with what His Honour Judge Jack said in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) , a judgment that attracted some attention even whilst I was hearing this case: