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.
Representation: Ms Homer of counsel for the Applicant Ms Simpson of counsel for the 1st Respondent Ms Ogunrinade of counsel for the 2nd Respondent Ms Logan-Green of counsel for the 3rd Respondent Child ____________________
'In every care case, the Children Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act require the court to address a series of questions. What are the facts? Has the threshold been crossed? If so, what order is in the child's best interests? Is that outcome necessary and proportionate to the problem? There is much authority from the appeal courts about each of these questions but at its simplest every valid decision will answer them.'
(a) the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him;
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.