Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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