W100 Etma04

i. Given the criteria of the threshold it is likely a care order can be granted. To meet the criteria for a care order the child must have been, is likely or is suffering significant harm. Significant harm is classified from the case of Humberside County Council v B [1993] 1 FLR 257 ‘that minor shortcomings or trivial matters should not trigger the possibility of compulsory intervention unless they have serious and lasting effects on the child’ (cited in Arthur R, 2006).
Given the circumstances surrounding the taking of methadone is to be over a period of time there no certainty to if the current situation may or may not arise again. As methadone is a drug given to recovering drug addicts it is to be kept in a locked container and is also supplied in a child proof bottle. Peter had acted carelessly by leaving the bottle on the kitchen table posing it a severe danger to a child of Lucy’s age. These given circumstances can be likely to fall in the category of significant harm as all the attributable actions by peter and the possibility of the long term use of methadone can be empathised as that the child is likely to suffer significant harm in the future if Peter is to act carelessly again.
The term meant by is ‘likely to suffer’ was outlined by the House of Lords in Re H and R [1996] 1FLR 80 as being a ‘real possibility, a possibility that cannot be sensibly ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case (Cited in Arthur R, 2006). Methadone being a serious hazard to a child that has admitted Lucy on this occasion to hospital and if left to happen again can pose a serious thought of what damage the child might sustain if Peter was to allow a situation like this to happen again. This fear of possible consequence is likely to give an indication of the possibility of more serious effects and also the possibility of death if the child was to drink enough of the drug given if the child were to get hold of it in the future. All...