Care order effect

[youngagain]

I was looking at a judgement made in 2005 by lord justice Munby and how it in effect reflects upon care orders. Something it said to the effect that what a care order actually imposed in law is that in a hypothetical situation if a child was in care and you removed them to your home then unless the L.A. could demonstrate that the child was at risk then it would be legal to do so.Anyone any thoughts? That is my understanding of the the current law correct me please if I am wrong.

[Help 1870]

Can you post a link to the Judgement please.

[youngagain]

Hi 1870 I used a google search "emergency care order" the information can be found at family law week in full under interim care order, there is a very informative article.

[Help 1870]

Nope, cant find it.

Just copy the link in your browser bar and paste it into a reply here.

[youngagain]

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed28647

I hope this is ok

[Help 1870]

Thats an interesting link, but not one that relates to the 2005 mumby judgement you mentioned. (which I cant find) The two would have to be read in conjunction with each other to fully understand the point you are trying to get across.

What the link this relates to is the threshold for removing children into interim care and what evidence should be required in order to do that.

In realation to removing a child to your home where a child was 'in care' obviously depends on the order a child is under. Section 20 is voluntary, parents retain full PR and the local authority has none so theoretically a parent can remove a child back to their care, or to the care of a relative, although most LA's would probably apply for an emergency order of some description to prevent that or get the child back as the arrangement would have likely been made because of child protection concerns. A care order effectively gives the LA custody of the child. Removal by a parent would breach that so be illegal. For a care order to be granted threshold must have been reached so its already been proven that its necessary to remove.

All this would only relate to parents unless a carer holds some form of PR. Without that PR no one has a right to remove a child from anywhere unless its with a court order which by default would grant PR. Only parents retain PR at all times unless its removed by adoption proceedings. Its not possible to have 2 section 8 orders running concurrently, the granting of one (CO) discharges another (RO/SGO) and vice versa, so the child would either be in care or not be in care. Any attempt, particularly by a relative, to remove a child from either a voluntary placement or from a care order placement could probably be considered child abduction.

[youngagain]

I understand all of this however in law any decision that is taken by a court that is based on incorrect evidence is unlawful. this relates to our proceedings where just about every principle in the case law I have directed you to was ignored. So at the time if we would have removed the child from care then it would be highly debatable if it was abduction or simply enforcing the human rights act ie that the child had a right to family life. we are at present taking steps to bring the council to account.

[youngagain]

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl ... 6498089576

I think this is the link

[Help 1870]

LOL

Not unless you were directing me towards Nivea sun cream,[:D]

[youngagain]

Its the PDF immediate protection result no 5 i think[:I]