Re: Key Judgement which explains the issue of "significant harm" given on 12 June 201
I want to quote Lady Hale in this judgement: Re:B(A Child) 2013.
Lady Hale was the only dissenter in this matter and is quoted a lot now because of the principle of "nothing else will do" principle.
At Paragraph 198 in the above judgement Lady Hale states: "It is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do".
In the children's Act 1989, section 31(2) relates to whether the threshold has been crossed. When this has been established then the judge must consider the welfare checklist in Section 1(3).
Am updating my own knowledge at the moment on the legal issues in relation to Family Public Law Outline and was reading the Lady Hale judgement a little more precisely.
Originally posted by leclerc
View Post
Lady Hale was the only dissenter in this matter and is quoted a lot now because of the principle of "nothing else will do" principle.
At Paragraph 198 in the above judgement Lady Hale states: "It is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do".
In the children's Act 1989, section 31(2) relates to whether the threshold has been crossed. When this has been established then the judge must consider the welfare checklist in Section 1(3).
Am updating my own knowledge at the moment on the legal issues in relation to Family Public Law Outline and was reading the Lady Hale judgement a little more precisely.
Comment