G (Children)

The judge erred in believing she lacked power to extend the injunction under the Human Rights Act; this error affected the outcome, and the appeal is allowed on that ground.

Parties: Appellant: Local Authority; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 October 2019
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Care Orders, Discharge of Care Orders, Injunctions Under Human Rights Act, Parental Responsibility, Removal of Children, Article 8 Rights

Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Orders Discharge of Care Orders Injunctions Under Human Rights Act Parental Responsibility Removal of Children +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the judge had jurisdiction to extend an injunction under the Human Rights Act
2 Whether the discharge of care orders was justified on the evidence
3 Whether removal of children constituted unlawful interference with Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in believing she lacked power to extend the injunction under the Human Rights Act; this error affected the outcome, and the appeal is allowed on that ground.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

Order discharging care orders set aside
Discharge application remitted for case-management directions hearing