Family Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Family Law - Essay Examplen his judgment, Lord Nicholls was of the view that Often than not, tribunals and courts in interpreting the requirement doorway outline low arm 31 0f the Act have constantly have to decide whether or not an alleged guinea pig in reality took issue. In his wise decision, Lord Nicholls upgrade observed that as a general rule where there is a possibility that a past event might have taken place then that is proof enough to the requisite standard or threshold and the law regards such an incident as definitely having taken place 2 The legal implication of such a decision by the court is that the finis should be made following the statutory, legal policy or otherwise. Consequently, determination of such an issue is susceptible to change since it is the judiciary and not the legislature that sets the policy and it is still in the hands of the court to reconsider the viability solution for the problem. In the case of Lancashire County Council and Another v. Barlow and Another and One Other Action Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated that the court is empowered under section 31(1) of the 1989 Children Act to make an hallow putting the child under the local authority control or placing him or her under the carry on of local authority, or even under the care of a probate officer. Nevertheless, certain minimum conditions must be met before the court making such an order this conditions are usually referred to as threshold conditions. These threshold conditions are outlined under section 31(2) the 1989 Children Act which reads A care order or a supervision order may be made by a court if it satisfied_ a) that the child in question is piteous, or is potential to suffer, substantial harm and b). that the harm, or possibility of harm, is actually attributable to the... Courts have held that they are empowered under section 31(1) of the 1989 Children Act to make an order putting the child under the local authority supervision or placing him o r her under the care of local authority, or even under the care of a probate officer. Nevertheless, certain minimum conditions must be met before the court making such an order this conditions are usually referred to as threshold conditions. These conditions include that the child in question is suffering, or is likely to suffer, substantial harm and that the harm, or possibility of harm, is actually attributable to the care accorded to the child, or the care likely to be given to the child in the event the order was not made, and the care not being what it would be rational to suppose a parent to give the child or where the child is beyond control of the parent . The court further noted that in the interpretation of section 31 of the Children Act of 1989, particular attention should be paid under section 1(3) of the Act which sets out the Childs welfare checklist. The welfare checklist under the foregoing section includes consideration of any harm that the child is at risk of suffe ring or any harm that the child concerned has suffered and the capability of each of the childs parent to satisfy the bespeaks of the child. Accordingly, the connection between the casual likelihood need not be that direct, sole, or dominant cause and effect and that a causal connection that is contributory meet the requirements.