Child Care in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Re KD (A Minor) (Access: Principles)
    • House of Lords
    • 18 Febrero 1988

    The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities exercise a supervisory role and interfere to rescue a child when the parental tie is broken by abuse or separation.

  • Re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); Re W
    • House of Lords
    • 14 Marzo 2002

    First, a cardinal principle of the Children Act is that when the court makes a care order it becomes the duty of the local authority designated by the order to receive the child into its care while the order remains in force. While a care order is in force the court's powers, under its inherent jurisdiction, are expressly excluded: section 100(2)(c) and (d). Further, the court may not make a contact order, a prohibited steps order or a specific issue order: section 9(1).

    Despite all the inevitable uncertainties, when deciding whether to make a care order the court should normally have before it a care plan which is sufficiently firm and particularised for all concerned to have a reasonably clear picture of the likely way ahead for the child for the foreseeable future.

  • J v C
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Febrero 1969

    I think they connote a process whereby when all the relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed, the course to be followed will be that which is most in the interests of the child's welfare as that term has now to be understood. That is the first consideration because it is of first importance and the paramount consideration because it rules upon or determines the course to be followed.

  • Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon
    • House of Lords
    • 27 Julio 2000

    It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. That phrase can be misleading in that it can suggest that the professional person must knowingly and deliberately accept responsibility. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.

  • Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Diciembre 1984

    If a son disobeyed, his father would cut him off with a shilling. 3342, 1967), that the legal right of a parent to the custody of a child ends at the 18th birthday: and even up till then, it is a dwindling right which the courts will hesitate to enforce against the wishes of the child, and the more so the older he is. It starts with a right of control and ends with little more than advice."

  • M and Another v London Borough of Newham and Others; X and Others v Bedfordshire County Council
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Junio 1995

    Such a scheme is designed to protect weaker members of society (children) from harm done to them by others. To my mind, the nearest analogies are the cases where a common law duty of care has been sought to be imposed upon the police (in seeking to protect vulnerable members of society from wrongs done to them by others) or statutory regulators of financial dealings who are seeking to protect investors from dishonesty.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT