A Local Authority v MA & Ors

Mr Teertha Gupta (instructed by the Legal Department) for the plaintiff (local authority) Ms Anne-Marie Hutchinson (of Dawson Cornwell) for the third defendant (SA) The second defendant (mother) in person The first defendant (father) was neither present nor represented Hearing date: 1 December 2005 Hearing date: 1 December 2005 ____________________

This last point is, in my judgment, of fundamental importance, as is Dr Parsons's final observation, which related to SA's ability to convey her views:

Those concerns, articulated before Dr Parsons had reported, have not of course been allayed by his report.

In Re S (Adult Patient) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life) [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam) , [2003] 1 FLR 292 , I elaborated on this at para [52]:

That formulation, I should add (though this does not appear from the report), was in fact derived from certain passages in Sharpe, The Law of Habeas Corpus (ed 2) at pages 165, 175, and from what the Supreme Court of the United States of America had said in Jones v Cunningham (1963) 371 US 236 at page 243.