Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP ORDERS: A Local Authority v Y, Z and Others

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : a-local-authority-v-y-z-and-others
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 1, 2006, 11:30 AM
Article ID : 88163

(Family Division; Robin Toulson QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge; 1 February 2006) [2006] 2 FLR 41

Making special guardianship orders in respect of three children, with the agreement of the mother, the local authority and the approval of the guardian, the judge noted that these orders, recently introduced by Adoption and Children Act 2002, cemented the relationship between the adults and children concerned to greater degree than residence orders would, that unlike fostering orders they did not involve the children in the restrictive care system, and that unlike adoption they allowed the children to preserve their legal relationship with their natural family. Relying merely on the mothers consent to placement with these families (both part of the childrens wider family) would have left the children vulnerable to a change of mind on the part of the mother. The judge considered that there was an inquisitorial element to the courts function, having at an interim stage held that a report under Children Act 1989, s 14A(8), could not be dispensed with by consent. It seemed to be the case that a parent might continue to apply for a s 8 order in respect of a child who was the subject of a special guardianship order without seeking leave.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from