Baby without a name / child removed because of father’s aggression towards social workers

Perhaps the right answer on expert evidnce; but perhaps void because no attempt to address the law on expert evidnce

suesspiciousminds

The Court of Appeal have given judgment in the full Permission to appeal application by these parents from a Care Order and Placement Order decision at first instance.

Re BP and SP v Hertfordshire 2014

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1524.html

This case was covered by me when Ryder LJ first gave a judgment on the papers moving it forward to fuller hearing

http://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/08/02/we-are-all-unquantified-risks/

[You might recall, if I jog your memory, that this was the case involving a child where there had been no naming ceremony, and the father had assaulted the social worker – and at the hearing before Ryder LJ the thrust of the argument had been “if the child was removed because the father was a risk to social workers, was that wrong?”

If you don’t remember that, you might remember the Telegraph’s report about the case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10855218/Child-with-no-name-must-be-adopted-judge-rules.html ]

These were Ryder LJ’s strong words at that initial permission hearing (but…

View original post 2,166 more words

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s