This is a County Court case (if there is such a thing any more, I have largely decided to ignore most of the Children and Families Act 2014 and just wait for the reboot restoring all the terminology to the way it was). So it isn’t precedent, and isn’t one of those case that you HAVE to read.
It is unusual though, and I am grateful to one of my readers (waves at Cara) for drawing it to my attention.
Re E (a child) 2014
This is a private law case, albeit one with a Social Services flavour. In effect, when mum and dad separated and got themselves embroiled in an argument about contact (see, I told you that I was just going to ignore the new terminology) dad started to become enamoured with the idea that if he could show the Court that mum was abusing the children…
View original post 1,544 more words
The Appeal in Q (Children) 2014
Grumblings that the Judge was biased are fairly commonplace, complaints that the Judge was biased get made from time to time – appeals on the point are pretty rare and successful appeals rarer still. Q is one of the latter, and as such a rare breed is worthy of some consideration.
- The case concerns two boys, W, born 12th January 2003 and therefore now aged 11 years, and R, born 9th August 2012 and therefore now aged 21 months. Proceedings with respect to the children commenced nearly two years ago and comprised, for the first three months, a private law dispute between the two parents. However, the local authority then issued care proceedings and it was in those proceedings that HHJ Tyzack undertook an extended fact finding process involving some 13 days of evidence between July and November 2013 and culminating…
View original post 6,883 more words
Here are today’s new stories which we feel are news worthy:
- MoD Faces Legal Fight Over Recruitment of Child Soldiers
- Rise in “Witchcraft” Child Abuse Cases
- Rotherham Scandal has Caused Outrage, But Little Action