Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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