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...
Latest articles
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
View all articles

ADOPTION/ APPEAL: Re C (Permission to Appeal Placement Order) [2013] EWCA Civ 1100

Sep 29, 2018, 21:13 PM
Slug : adoption-appeal-re-c-permission-to-appeal-placement-order-2013-ewca-civ-1100
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 10, 2013, 09:40 AM
Article ID : 103499

(Court of Appeal, McFarlane LJ, 30 July 2013)

Care proceedings were initiated in relation to the young child, now 21 months of age, due to concerns for the care offered by his 17-year-old mother and her relationship with the father. Soon afterwards the grandmother put herself forward as a potential long-term carer of the child under a special guardianship order.

At the final hearing the judge found in favour of the local authority with a care plan for adoption. The grandmother sought permission to appeal.

Permission to appeal was granted. The primary reason for doing so was the impact of Re B [2013] UKSC 13 and the need for courts to approach the question as to whether a child should be removed from the natural family and adopted, in a manner which paid full respect to the human rights duties imposed upon a court, to respect Art 8 family life rights, and only to grant such an order where it was necessary to do so, or where nothing else will do.

The Supreme Court was unanimous it its determination that the test that an appeal court should apply was not whether a decision was plainly wrong but whether it was wrong.

In addition the judge failed to consider in the judgment why it was necessary to proceed with adoption and although the word proportionate was used there was no explanation as to why adoption was proportionate. It was incumbent upon a judge to set out expressly, in terms sufficient for the court to understand, why adoption was to be preferred over a family placement. Further there was no consideration of the benefits or detriments to the child of adoption and no reference to the welfare checklist. 


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