Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
When two worlds collide: the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
Dr Onyója Momoh, Barrister, 5 Pump Court ChambersMost will agree that the relationship between the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions is a match made in heaven. However, the intersection between the 1970...
Familial relationships following a traditional surrogacy arrangement
Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn January 2024, Theis J declined to discharge a child arrangements order for contact between a surrogate mother and a...
Practical enforcement
James Snelus, No 5 ChambersA look at some of the problems that can be encountered when enforcing financial remedy orders.  The article is not a comprehensive overview. It briefly considers how to...
Cremation and the family: some burning issues
Andrew Bainham, Emeritus Reader in Family Law and Policy, University of CambridgeIn this article the author considers the law and practice surrounding modern cremation and the cremation aspects...
Changes to cost limits for Child Abduction and Wardship
Cost Update for Child Abduction and WardshipWhen reviewing current costs limitation for Child Abduction and Wardship it has been agreed following consultation and feedback that the cost limit for the...
View all articles
Authors

Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice

Nov 25, 2020, 15:51 PM
Title : Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice
Slug :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Nov 25, 2020, 00:00 AM
Article ID :

Dr Ben Laskey ClinPsyD, AFBPS, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, The Psychology Partnership
George Butler, Barrister at Law, 42 Bedford Row Chambers

The family courts are full of cases involving children who have been exposed to harmful behaviour which is said to impact their emotional and psychological, as opposed to their physical, welfare. While it is often easy to describe this harmful behaviour it's much harder to draw direct evidential links between harmful behaviour and harmful outcomes for children. This is particularly true when looking at allegations of emotional harm that arise at the start of proceedings before assessments have been completed.

This article explores, from both a legal and psychological perspective, the particular issues which can arise when considering emotional harm in the context of interim removal cases. Starting with the premise that a child should not be removed from her parents’ care on an interim basis unless her welfare needs, including her emotional and psychological welfare needs, leave no viable alternative; the article examines the tools that psychologists use to analyse harmful outcomes from children and looks at the way these might used by advocates to frame arguments both in favour of and against interim removal.

The authors address the positive and negative ramifications of the cautious approach taken by the courts in such cases and review whether this approach has solid psychological as well as legal foundations.


The full article will be published in the December issue of Family Law

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles