Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

PLACEMENT ORDER: Re R (Appeal From Placement Order: Change of Circumstances) [2013] EWCA Civ 1240

Sep 29, 2018, 18:51 PM
Slug : placement-order-r-appeal-from-placement-order-change-of-circumstances-2013-ewca-civ-1240
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 29, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103921

(Court of Appeal, Patten, McFarlane, Floyd LJJ, 6 September 2013)

The mother appealed final care and placement for adoption orders in relation to her two children, aged 11 and 5. When the orders were made it was clear that the priority was for the children to be placed together either through adoption or long-term fostering. In the 12 months since the hearing the local authority had been unable to identify either for the children.

The children had moved short-term foster homes and it became clear as their personalities had developed that it was not necessarily in their best interests to be placed together and that it would be particularly difficult to parent them both in the same home. The plan was now for an adoptive placement to be found for the younger child but for the older child to be placed in long-term foster care. It was agreed that the placement order would be revoked.

During the course of proceedings the local authority conceded that the appropriate way forward was for the younger child's placement order to be revoked and the matter considered afresh in the light of the circumstances that had now arisen. McFarlane LJ agreed that this was a pragmatic and child-focused approach. 

 

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