UKSC really needs to remedy the glaring gap between theory and practice when birth parents and local authority fundamentally disagree in exercising PR:
“101. The distinction drawn here between parental views that are inconsistent with the child’s welfare and highly problematic cases where there is genuine scope for a difference of view remains a valuable one. It is a reminder that, while the views of parents must always be taken into account, the weight that is given to them depends not upon the vehemence with which they are expressed but upon their substance.”
This is a Court of Appeal case which follows up from the Hayden J decision in the cestui que vie case (remember, all of us are legally dead because we’re all lost at sea) about vaccination.
As a super-quick bullet point, we had a MacDonald J decision that if a parent disagreed with the child being vaccinated then the LA should NOT use their powers under a Care Order to agree to it and should instead come to Court, and then this later decision from Hayden J that the LA SHOULD use their powers and should NOT come to Court. (Legally up until this Court of Appeal hearing that meant legally that the LA SHOULD use their powers but any High Court Judge could overrule that)
Re H (A Child : Parental Responsibility : Vaccination) 2020
Whilst this decision was about the MMR vaccine (which in the minds of…
View original post 2,027 more words