Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: A City Council v DC and Others [2013] EWHC 8 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:38 PM
Slug : adoption-a-city-council-v-dc-and-others-2013-ewhc-8-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 24, 2013, 05:19 AM
Article ID : 101443

(Family Division, Eleanor King J, 11 January 2013)

The child was one of a number of children termed as statutory orphans, who had been the subject of care and freeing orders but in respect of whom an adoption had not taken place or the order revoked. The court was asked to regularise the position of the child and provide guidance on other such cases.

The court held that in cases where the local authority sought the court's exercise of discretion to revoke a freeing order an application to the High Court should be made with notice to all parties including the former parents. Good practice required the parents to be told face to face by a social worker of the intended application.

At the first directions hearing: The court would decide the preliminary issue as to whether it was in the child's best interests to revoke the freeing order based on the information contained in the statement and supporting documents. It was envisaged that by the very nature of the application in most, if not all cases, it would be appropriate formally to revoke the freeing order at that hearing. If for any reason the freeing order was not revoked at that stage it should be re-listed for determination as soon as practicable. The making of the order revoking the freeing order would revive the original care order and give parental responsibility to the mother/father.

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