Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: R (W) v Brent London Borough Council [2010] EWHC 175 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 15:13 PM
Slug : adoption-r-w-v-brent-london-borough-council-2010-ewhc-175-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 9, 2010, 10:24 AM
Article ID : 84605

(Queen's Bench Division (Admin); Coulson J; 9 February 2010)

The mother sought a judicial review of a local authority's decision to place her daughter for adoption. The child went to live with the adopters three days after a fax sent by the mother's solicitors indicating that mother intended to seek to revoke placement order. The social worker concerned was not aware of the fax until the day after the child moved in with the adopters.

The issue the court considered was at what point had the placement for the adoption taken place. It held that it was not when the matching panel made its decision, nor was it necessary for child to have moved in permanently. In this case it was held to be after all the relevant legal formalities and the introductions process had begun.

The placement was not an abuse of power, irrational or perverse. The fax had not been marked 'urgent', was addressed to someone who was known to be absent for a few days, and the solicitors failed to chase response or to seek an injunction.

The authority's duty to notify the mother in writing of proposed placement 'as soon as possible after making its decision' meant 'as soon as possible in all the circumstances'.

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