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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: K v London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926

Sep 29, 2018, 21:11 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-k-v-london-borough-of-brent-2013-ewca-civ-926
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 7, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103297

(Court of Appeal, Arden, Rafferty, Ryder LJJ, 29 July 2013)

The now 17-month-old child had lived with her paternal grandmother for over a year following a violent incident between the parents. The parents accepted that the threshold had been met and that neither could care for the child. The grandmother applied for a special guardianship order. Despite having a care plan for an adoptive placement the local authority had failed to begin placement proceedings.

No copy of the authority's permanence report was provided to the court. The children's guardian opposed the removal of the child from the grandmother, stating that removal would be devastating for her. The judge held that the care order with a view to adoptive placement should be made. The grandmother, supported by the parents and the guardian appealed the order.

The appeal was allowed. There was no permanence report providing an analysis of the risks of the child remaining with the grandmother and the advantages of adoption. There was no evidence about why an adoptive placement was necessary and the social worker's report did not set out why such a significant step as permanent removal from the family was required. The judge's conclusion was neither evidenced nor reasoned and was, accordingly, wrong. The case was remitted for an urgent rehearing.

 

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