A baby taken from his 18-year-old mother hours after he was born must remain in local authority foster care, a judge in Nottingham has ruled.
A baby taken from his 18-year-old mother hours after he was born must remain in local authority foster care, a judge in Nottingham has ruled.
The baby boy will stay in foster care until further inquiries are made, the district judge said.
The child was removed from his mother by social workers on Wednesday - but then returned after a High Court judge ruled they had no rights to take him.
The boy was originally reunited with his mother after a High Court judge ruled social service workers did not have a proper court order to take him.
The baby, known as G, will stay in care until further inquiries are made, District Judge Richard Inglis said.
The mother, who suffers from mental health problems, opposed the move.
The mother, who suffers from mental health problems, opposed the move.
Interim care
Judge Inglis said: "In this case the court has decided that the welfare of G requires that he lives in local authority foster care on an interim basis while further inquiries are made and assessments carried out.
District Judge Richard Inglis said: "In this case the court has decided that the welfare of 'G' requires that he lives in local authority foster care on an interim basis while further inquiries are made and assessments carried out.
When the further inquiries have been made, the court expects to be in a better position later this year to make a decision District Judge Richard Inglis
When the further inquiries have been made, the court expects to be in a better position later this year to make a decision District judge District Judge Richard Inglis
"His mother will have frequent periods of contact with him each week."
"His mother will have frequent periods of contact with him each week."
The baby was born to the 18-year-old, who has just left local authority care, in a Nottingham hospital on Wednesday.
The baby was born to the woman, who has just left local authority care, in a Nottingham hospital on Wednesday.
He was taken by social workers a few hours later but the High Court judge sitting in London said that "on the face of it" social services officials had acted unlawfully because they had not obtained a court order.
He was removed without the mother's consent after hospital staff were shown a "birth plan" prepared by social workers from Nottingham City Council.
He was reunited with his mother about 45 minutes after the judge's order was made on Wednesday.
The case went to the magistrates' court and was later referred to the County Court on Thursday as part of an interim care order hearing.
The judge said: "When the further inquiries have been made, the court expects to be in a better position later this year to make a decision about who should care for G and what part his mother and other members of his family should play in his future care."
The child was removed without the mother's consent after hospital staff were shown a "birth plan" prepared by social workers from Nottingham City Council.
The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed without supervision by social workers.
The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed without supervision by social workers.
But Mr Justice Munby ruled they had acted unlawfully.
But Mr Justice Munby ruled they had acted unlawfully.
He was reunited with his mother about 45 minutes after the judge's order was made.
The case went to the magistrates' court and was later referred to the County Court on Thursday as part of an interim care order hearing.
The judge said: "When the further inquiries have been made, the court expects to be in a better position later this year to make a decision about who should care for G and what part his mother and other members of his family should play in his future care."
The pair cannot be named because of reporting restrictions. The interim care order was heard during a private hearing.
The pair cannot be named because of reporting restrictions. The interim care order was heard during a private hearing.
Have you been affected by any of the issues raised in this story? Send us your comments using the form below:
