Re D (A Child) (2019) UKSC 42: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 9: Line 9:
|Parties=D, Birmingham City Council, Equality and Human Rights Commission, Secretary of State for Justice
|Parties=D, Birmingham City Council, Equality and Human Rights Commission, Secretary of State for Justice
|Judicial history first case=Re D (A Child: deprivation of liberty) (2015) EWHC 922 (Fam)
|Judicial history first case=Re D (A Child: deprivation of liberty) (2015) EWHC 922 (Fam)
|Cites=Nielsen v Denmark 10929/84 (1988) ECHR 23
|Sentence=Parental responsibility and DOL
|Sentence=Parental responsibility and DOL
|Summary=It is not within the scope of parental responsibility to consent to living arrangements for a 16- or 17-year-old child which would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of [[Article 5]].
|Summary=It is not within the scope of parental responsibility to consent to living arrangements for a 16- or 17-year-old child which would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of [[Article 5]].

Latest revision as of 19:55, 20 July 2023

Parental responsibility and DOL It is not within the scope of parental responsibility to consent to living arrangements for a 16- or 17-year-old child which would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5.

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Date: 26/9/19🔍

Court: Supreme Court🔍

Judicial history:

Cites:

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • D🔍
  • Birmingham City Council🔍
  • Equality and Human Rights Commission🔍
  • Secretary of State for Justice🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 27/2/23 21:50

Cached: 2025-04-09 02:13:50