Spotlight
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
What happens when assets are tainted: financial remedies v confiscation proceedings revisited
Sarah Wood, 5SAHFollowing on from her 2019 article 'Financial Remedies v Confiscation Proceedings: What Takes Priority?’ ([2019] Fam Law 941) in which Sarah Wood looked, in general terms, about...
Disclosure 2: This time it’s practical
Andrew Shaw, New Court ChambersSam Prout, New Court ChambersThis article aims to provide a practical guide to navigating some disclosure issues that can arise in family proceedings concerning...
Placing looked after children outside of the jurisdiction (post-Brexit)
Michael Jones, Deans Court ChambersA summary of the legal provisions that apply to placing looked after children outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. This article contains a brief summary of...
Rings, Rolexes and Renoirs – The treatment of gifts, engagement rings, and heirlooms when a relationship comes to an end
Sarah Dodds, Senior Associate, Kingsley NapleyLiam Hurren, Trainee Solicitor, Kingsley NapleyWhen a couple separates, thoughts often turn to the valuable or sentimental items which they acquired or...
HM Treasury responds to consultation on increasing normal minimum pension age
HM Treasury  has responded to its consultation on the proposed protections framework and implementing an increase of the normal minimum pension age (NMPA) from 55 to 57 in 2028, which will...
View all articles
Authors

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