Sign up for MHLO on the Subscriptions page: you can sign up for free email updates, the email discussion list, the online forum and the CPD scheme (which provides 12 hours for £60 and is suitable for lawyers and non-lawyers).

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Section 29 displacement - reinterview/reassessment needed?

A Local Authority v C [2013] EWHC 4036 (Fam), [2013] MHLO 125

C had long-standing mental health problems and her two children had previously been removed from her. (1) Under the inherent jurisdiction Parker J made an anticipatory declaration that it was lawful for C's third baby to be removed immediately upon delivery, in order to safeguards the child's interests, on the understanding that the local authority would apply for an emergency protection order or an interim care order at the first possible moment. (2) No evidence was heard from C, and a litigation friend was not appointed, in order to avoid C being informed, the judge (and local authority solicitor) thinking that that (a) Official Solicitor would become C's solicitor so the solicitor-client duty of disclosure would apply, and (b) the only exception to that duty is when the client consents.

Other

Date: 16/9/13

Before: Parker J

For the Applicant: Mr Jones, Solicitor

For the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

External links

BAILII
(published 20/12/13)

SRA Code of Conduct 2011, chapter 4: Confidentiality and disclosure