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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
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....
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...
View all articles
Authors

PLACEMENT ORDER: Re F (Appeal From Placement Order) [2013] EWCA Civ 1277

Sep 29, 2018, 18:51 PM
Slug : placement-order-re-f-appeal-from-placement-order-2013-ewca-civ-1277
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 28, 2013, 06:39 AM
Article ID : 103919

(Court of Appeal, Rimer, Black, Kitchin LJJ, 23 October 2013)

The 4-year-old child was reported to be very troubled and in need of intensive therapy. The psychologist did not refer to her as unadoptable but reported that she would need a programme of therapeutic parenting before adoption could be considered. Nevertheless at a final hearing final care and placement orders were granted. The father's first appeal of the placement order was refused.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed. It was clear from the psychological evidence that it was impossible to tell whether adoption would be appropriate for the child until she had undertaken some therapy. At which point it would depend on how she had progressed and also what adopters were available at the time. On the totality of the evidence it was not established that the child's welfare throughout her life required adoption. It was wrong for the court to have granted a placement order.

 

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