G (A Child), Re

G (A Child), Re

There was no arguable error in Judge Coates’s management of the case or her refusal to order further assessment of the aunt. The judge had sufficient evidence, properly considered the aunt’s disability, and gave clear reasons for her decision. The findings of fact, including sabotage of the assessment, were unassailable. There was no breach of the Equality Act 2010 by the judge, and the judgment adequately explained the risks and needs. The application for permission to appeal was refused as there was no basis for appellate intervention.

Parties
Subject Child: G (A Child); Applicant/appellant: Maternal Aunt; Respondent: Mother; Local Authority/applicant for Care and Placement Orders: West Sussex County Council; Respondent: Children’s Guardian; Respondent: Father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (child Protection) / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Care Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Special Guardianship, Assessment of Carers, Equality Act 2010 Duties, Case Management, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Child Protection Disability Law Care Orders Special Guardianship Assessment of Carers Equality Act 2010 Duties Case Management +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G (A Child)

Subject Child

Maternal Aunt

Applicant/appellant

Mother

Respondent

West Sussex County Council

Local Authority/applicant for Care and Placement Orders

Children’s Guardian

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (child Protection) / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Care Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing further assessment of the aunt as carer for T
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the Equality Act 2010 in the assessment process
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to identify and evaluate risks and needs adequately

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable error in Judge Coates’s management of the case or her refusal to order further assessment of the aunt. The judge had sufficient evidence, properly considered the aunt’s disability, and gave clear reasons for her decision. The findings of fact, including sabotage of the assessment, were unassailable. There was no breach of the Equality Act 2010 by the judge, and the judgment adequately explained the risks and needs. The application for permission to appeal was refused as there was no basis for appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Stay not extended; local authority free to implement care order