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
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

APPEAL: H v G (Adoption: Appeal) [2013] EWHC 2136 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:10 PM
Slug : appeal-h-v-g-adoption-appeal-2013-ewhc-2136-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 26, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103195

(Family Division, Peter Jackson J, 3 June 2013)

The mother, a young adult, who had a long and difficult history including the removal of her first child from her care, appealed an adoption order in relation to her 2-year-old child and in respect of the decision not to order direct contact.

Following the birth of the child they attended a mother and baby foster placement which broke down after only a month but the child had remained with the foster carer ever since.

The mother claimed that the judge had weighed the evidence incorrectly in deciding that an adoption order should be made.

The orders that were made were grave orders and added to the making of an adoption order the absence of an order for contact was a conclusion of real significance. However, the district judge was aware of those considerations, and having considered the matter once again, there was no basis for saying that his evaluation that the difficulties that the mother continued to face were too great to allow her to reliably meet the needs of the child, was wrong.

The test for granting permission to appeal, which appeared at Rule 30.3(7) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 was that an applicant must show ‘a real prospect of success'. No further elaboration of those words was necessary or helpful. To allow permission to appeal in any case where the application is not capricious, whimsical or absurd was to set the threshold too low. It did not give effect to the rule that simply required a real prospect of success to be shown.


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