P-B (A Child), Re

(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

The Appellant appeared in person The Defendant did not attend and was not represented ____________________

Dr P, unimpressed by that assertion, did not file any contrary evidence. However, in her position statement which was handed in on the morning of the first day of a two-day hearing, on 5/6 June, she said in paragraph 9:

That position statement being handed in at the outset did not of course allow Dr P any opportunity to respond. But he did in the witness box express his view on the merit of this application. He has obtained a transcript of the relevant passage of his evidence, which is commendably brief. He said in relation to paragraph 9 of the position statement:

Applying those two paragraphs to the present case there can be no doubt at all that the order made by the judge falls within paragraph 6; that is to say that it is an order unfounded on a past history of unreasonable applications. Accordingly paragraph 7 comes into play. It was only open to the judge to make the order if satisfied, first, that the facts go beyond commonly encountered needs; and secondly, that there was a serious risk that without the imposition of the restriction the child or the primary carers would be subject to unacceptable strain.