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.
This application relates principally to the level of contact which should be allowed in respect of the two children concerned (who are the subject of Care Orders) pending an adjourned hearing which is to take place in October.
On 25th May, the Court announced its decision and ordered an increase in contact. We now give our reasons.
The background to this case is described in the Court's judgment dated 28th February, 2012, [2012 JRC 044 ] ("the February judgment"); see in particular paras 1 - 40. Those paragraphs should be considered as included in this judgment and we do not propose to repeat them. Suffice it to say that we are concerned with two children, W (3) and J (nearly 2). W is the child of the mother (A) and B and J is the child of the parents (the mother and D). Expressions in the judgment have the same meaning as in the February judgment.
On 22nd March, 2011, the Court made final Care Orders in respect of the children ( [2011] JRC 059 ). However, pursuant to the Care Plan approved at the time, the children remained living with the parents.
On 16th August, 2011, without warning, the Children's Service removed the children from the care of the parents. W was placed in foster care and J was placed with potential kinship carers. Unfortunately this broke down and he was moved to separate foster carers on 30th November, 2011. Each child has remained with his respective foster carers since then.
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.