The link is to an appeal in the court of appeal against care orders. The underlying case is important as it is one of the multiple removal ones.
Even though the appeal allowed an ISW this still does not allow ISW assessments as of right.
The basis of the appeal was that an initial appeal should have been heard as an appeal rather than a merits review.
One paragraph is worth looking at:
11. This is a bizarre procedural history and has led to what seems to me to be a fundamentally unsatisfactory conclusion, namely that two judges in the same court in the same week have reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the same material.
Sadly that is the nature of the family courts. It is judge dependent rather than being a form of law that can be understood outwith the judicial process.
That isn't good, but that is the way it is. The first step towards getting it right is to recognise when it is wrong.
Even though the appeal allowed an ISW this still does not allow ISW assessments as of right.
The basis of the appeal was that an initial appeal should have been heard as an appeal rather than a merits review.
One paragraph is worth looking at:
11. This is a bizarre procedural history and has led to what seems to me to be a fundamentally unsatisfactory conclusion, namely that two judges in the same court in the same week have reached diametrically opposite conclusions on the same material.
Sadly that is the nature of the family courts. It is judge dependent rather than being a form of law that can be understood outwith the judicial process.
That isn't good, but that is the way it is. The first step towards getting it right is to recognise when it is wrong.
Comments