| Display title | DA v DJ [2017] EWHC 3904 (Fam) |
| Default sort key | DA v DJ (2017) EWHC 3904 (Fam) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,017 |
| Page ID | 10557 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 17:58, 21 March 2020 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:54, 8 October 2021 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | In this case Parker J followed the approach of HHJ Marshall QC in Re F [2009] EWHC B30 (Fam)M rather than the approach of Hayden J in Wandsworth LBC v A McC (2017) EWHC 2435 (Fam)B in relation to the correct approach to the threshold test for making an interim order under MCA 2005 s48 (which requires that there is "reason to believe that P lacks capacity in relation to the matter"). There is no need for the purpose and extent of the capacity assessment to be explained to the person concerned, and the evidence does not need to go so far as to rebut the presumption of capacity. |
