Hampshire County Council v SL & Ors, Court of Appeal - Family Division, November 25, 2004, [2004] EWHC 2720 (Fam)
Linked as:
Extract
Hampshire County Council v SL & Ors, Court of Appeal - Family Division, November 25, 2004, [2004] EWHC 2720 (Fam)
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Case No: PO02C00724Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 2720 (Fam)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEFAMILY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 25/11/2004Before :THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE HOGG- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr Robin Tolson QC and Mrs Roberta Holland instructed by The Local Authority for the ApplicantMr Paul Storey QC and Mrs Alexa Storey-Rea instructed for the First Respondent MotherMs Sally Bradley QC and Miss Kathryn Corol instructed for the Second Respondent FatherMs Judith Rowe QC and Miss Penelope Howe instructed for the Child's GuardianHearing dates: 1st-12th NovemberIn Basingstoke County Court- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMrs Justice Hogg : 1. The case before me relates to two small boys, S born on 16th August 1996 and is 8, and BL born on 4th November 2004 and is just 2. They have the same mother, but different fathers.2. S's father Mr G has parental responsibility through marriage with the mother. He plays no part in these proceedings but is fully aware of the Local Authority's care plan, including an application for a Care Order in respect of S. He wishes to continue seeing S on a regular basis, but for S to remain living with his mother. Were the Local Authority minded to remove him from his mother, Mr G would wish to have S living with him.3. BL's father is DL. He also has parental responsibility by marriage to the mother. He too accepts that BL should continue living with his mother and accepts that there should be a full Care Order in respect of BL. He now says he accepts that the parental relationship is at an end, and will not return to the mother's home to live, but wishes to continue seeing BL, and indeed S, on a regular basis, and if possible in time in a more natural manner and unsupervised basis.4. The proceedings in respect of S were instituted by the Local Authority on 12th November 2002. No interim Care Order has been made in respect of S. He has lived all his life with his mother and is described as being close to her.5. The proceedings in respect of BL were instituted on 5th November 2002, the day after he was born. An Interim Care Order in respect of him was originally made on 29th November 2002 and this has been maintained save for a lapse in Spring 2004.6. Like the father of BL the mother accepts there should be a Care Order in respect of BL, on the basis that he should continue to live with her.7. The issues before me relate to the threshold criteria. Both parents now acknowledge that their daughter C, who died on 4th December 2001, sustained a number of injuries whilst in their primary care. Neither parent accepts responsibility for those injuries. Neither parent provides an account of how any of those injuries were sustained. The mother does not seek to blame a third party. In her evidence she was struggling but beginning to believe that the father must have been responsible.8. C was born on 20th September 2001 and died at 17.55 pm on 4th December after life support was terminated. At 15.55 pm on 2nd December whilst being fed by her father upstairs in her bedroom in the family home, she collapsed and despite medical assistance never recovered.9. Her father was charged with her murder and 2 coun...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
