The Supreme Court considered the legal effect of a parent/carer having been placed in a pool of potential perpetrators of non-accidental injury to one child in dealing with the Threshold test in respect of a non-connected subject child. Confirming Re H and Re S-B the Supreme Court held that ‘ a real possibility that X harmed another child in the past is not by itself a basis upon which the court can properly be satisfied that there is a likelihood that X will harm the child in question in the future’.
Ward LJ in refused mother’s appeal against a care order in respect of her child. However he expressed sympathy with the mother’s position and history and hearing that the mother was pregnant again urged the relevant local authority to fund the therapy identified within the previous proceedings as necessary to the mother and to help her to look after her new child. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be sent to the local authority.
The CA considered whether Parker J at first instance had been entitled to vary an order which she considered to be an order for a lump payable by instalments and which H argued was an order providing for a series of separate lump sum orders and thus not variable. While the CA disagreed with Parker J’s finding that any order for the payment of money over a period of time amounted to a lump sum by instalments in the instant case Parker J had been entitled to find that the order was for a lump sum by instalments and thus the court had discretion to vary this order given the changed financial circumstances of the parties.
The court found that a respondent husband in ancillary relief proceedings to be in contempt of court (for a second time as there was already a suspended sentence of imprisonment in force) in respect of failure to comply with court ordered disclosure. The respondent husband was sentenced to six months immediate imprisonment.