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.
LORD JUSTICE FLOYD LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS and LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON ____________________
Damian Garrido QC and Sara Granshaw (instructed by Reading Borough Council) for the Appellant local authority Anna McKenna QC and Jason Green (instructed by Reeds Solicitors) for the Respondent father Janet Mitchell (instructed by Barrett & Thomson Solicitors) for the Respondent sister L Written submissions were received from Penny Howe QC and Paul Murray for the Respondent mother and from Isabelle Watson for the Children's Guardian. Hearing date: 27 March 2018 ____________________
(1) Are unable to instil in the children an understanding of appropriate sexual boundaries, leading to the children showing sexualised behaviour towards other children and in front of each other � five specific examples at school were given.
(2) Are unable to supervise the children adequately to ensure that they have no opportunity to participate in sexually inappropriate behaviour with other children or with adults whom the parents ought to see as a risk to children � one example was given relating to a 13-year-old and another to an 18-year-old.
(3) Lack insight into risks to the children from child sexual exploitation and child abuse, despite having undertaken safeguarding work with professionals over a number of years � three examples were given concerning the children's access to the internet.
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.