All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Richards LJJ; 3 November 2005),  FLR 1043, (2005) The Times, November 11
In considering whether to remove a child, the risk to the child of remaining had to be balanced against the risk of emotional harm in taking the child from its parents, siblings and home. The parents had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the guardian, whose position statement giving reasons for opposing the child's return to the care of the parents had been filed only on the morning of the hearing. This fell short of the standard of fairness so important when the removal of a child from its home was at stake.
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P