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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: MJ and LB v Local Authority; Re B [2008] EWCA Civ 835

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : mj-and-lb-v-local-authority-re-b-2008-ewca-civ-835
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 22, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87317

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Arden and Wall LJJ; 17 July 2008)

The local authority had conceded that it had committed 'a serious error' in the course of the adoption proceedings, in that it had failed to provide the Agency Adoption Panel with expert reports, or even a proper summary of those reports, and that the views of one of the experts had been seriously misrepresented to the panel. The Recorder nonetheless went on to make the placement order.

Allowing the parents' appeal, the adoption agency had breached Adoption and Children Act 2002 and Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 (whose English counterparts were Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005) and the Recorder should have remitted the case to the panel for urgent reconsideration in the light of all the information that should properly have been before it. The Act and the Regulations were there to be honoured and obeyed in their entirety; the framework could not be by-passed or short-circuited. If the decision of the Agency Adoption Panel (AAP) was flawed in any material respect, then the decision maker could not properly consider the AAP recommendation, and thus could not be satisfied that the child in question should be placed for adoption. Expert reports from care proceedings that addressed the present and future needs of the child should be provided to adoption panel members in advance of the relevant meeting and to decision makers for pre-reading. If such reports were voluminous, at a minimum those sections of the report setting out the experts' opinion, conclusions and/or recommendations should be provided in advance. A summary of the experts' opinions should only be provided to the panel members and the decision maker in substitution for the reports if: (a) the summary was in writing; (b) all parties to the care proceedings agreed; and (c) copies of the reports were available at the meeting for panel members and the decision maker to consult if desired. A clear, full and accurate minute of the panel meeting should be made during the meeting, with particular attention given to: (a) recording the documentation considered by panel members; and (b) the questions asked by panel members and the answers given by the social worker(s) present. The social workers attending the panel meeting to present the child's case should be invited to approve the record of the note of the questions asked of and answers given by them at the meeting. The decision to ratify the AAP's decision and to begin the process of applying for placement order must never be a simple rubber stamp; the circumstances in which the decision was taken should be transparent, and the decision itself and the reasons for it minuted. The source and substance of the information given to the decision maker must be clear.

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