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

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