Part A
Material Facts
The mother had a previous child who had died from non-accidental injuries obtained from his parents, which parent is unclear. The mother then has another child therefore triggering care proceedings due to the mother’s history. The courts agreed to an assessment in the Towers hospital for the family that would determine what happened to the previous child, an account of the events causing his death and assessing the mother’s ability to look after her current child. The mother failed to do this so a further six to eight week’s assessment was agreed to, in which these issues were finally addressed. The family were directed by the court to further treatment in a residential setting however due to an immediate appeal the family…show more content… Baroness Hales uses examples of the general purposive approach which looks at the reasoning for the legislation being enacted and applies this to the interpretation. An example of this is ‘The legislative history makes it clear that the latter was a principal, if not the principal, purpose of section 38(6) and (7)’ (Paragraph 63). It can be seen again in ‘The purpose of these provisions is, therefore, not only to enable the court to obtain the information it needs, but also to enable the court to control the information-gathering activities of others.’(Paragraph 64).
Another technique employed by Baroness Hales in this case is the mischief rule which looks at previous law in which the legislation intends to improve or change. This is shown in ‘The days before the 1989 Act, when the principal decision facing the court in wardship proceedings was not whether the child should be removed from the family, but whether to approve a long term placement with a view to adoption, rather than keep alive the hope of reuniting the child with her family.’(Paragraph
