Issues
3.In this judgment I deal with SW’s two children, R aged 3 and P aged 2, and EG’s child, N, aged 1.4.The following applications arise pursuant to section 4 and 8 Children Act 1989:a. JM’s applications for a Parental Responsibility Order (‘PRO’) in respect of each child;b. JM’s application for a CAO order and to spend time with each child;c. The Guardian’s application that the Court should make an order under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 to prevent JM making further applications for a period of three years without the permission of the Court;d. Whether the Court should publish JM’s name in the judgment.
- Mrs Justice Lieven DBE :
- Issues
- The Facts
- The Law
- Parental Responsibility Orders and contact issues
- FC v MC
- A v B and C
- D v E (Termination of Parental Responsibility)
- TJ v CV
- P and L (Minors)
- Section 91(14)
- Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage)
- Naming JM
- Re J (A Child)
- Re S, A Child
- Griffiths v Tickle
- The evidence
- Re B
- The Guardian’s position
- Conclusions and Findings
- Section 91(14)
- Naming JM in the judgment
- Tickle v Griffiths