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.
On 25 th February 2021, the Court granted the Applicants ("the maternal grandparents") a residence order in respect of the Third Respondent, their granddaughter ("WW"), who is aged thirteen years, and we now set out our reasons.
The Second Respondent ("the Mother") gave birth to WW in 2007. In June 2008 hair strand samples taken from WW tested positive for methadone and heroin. Following a protection order, she was placed with the maternal grandparents on in 2008.
An interim care order was made on 3 rd October 2008, to which D was made a party as WW's putative father ("D"). The procedural history thereafter is complex, but following a fact finding hearing the Court found on 22 nd March 2010 In the matter of E [2010] JRC 060 ) that, inter alia :
(ii) the heroin and methadone had not been intentionally administered to WW, but had entered her body as a result of culpable neglect on the part of "someone" whilst she was in the care of the Mother and D;
(iii) there were occasions prior to WW being placed with the maternal grandparents when no responsible drug free adult was caring for her;
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.