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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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