Tuesday, July 31, 2012
C, a baby [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam)
This judgment looks at the use of a voluntary agreement to put a child into care.
At the time of "agreeing" to this the mother had been medicated with Morphine. She was also told it was temporary when it has given rise to a forced adoption. In the end, however, it has still given rise to a forced adoption.
Parents are often bullied into accepting S20 agreements with the threat of court proceedings. This judgment doesn't really help.
posted by John Hemming ¶ 3:11 pm
Comments:
<< Home
I see the words 'Cassel' and Psychologist, so what is the true story.?
Approaching a patient who who has recently been given an anaesthetic is totally wrong. It needs no discussion. it is just plain wrong.
Approaching a patient who who has recently been given an anaesthetic is totally wrong. It needs no discussion. it is just plain wrong.
So true ! It looks like an opportunity for the judge to say : look, we use the article 8 when it is appropriate... We care about the mother human rights...
Post a Comment
<< Home
