Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Prospective Adopters for BT and another v County of Herefordshire District Council and others (A Local Authority and others intervening)

Jan 23, 2019, 06:25 AM
adoption
Slug :
Meta Title : adoption
Meta Keywords : adoption
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : Yes
Prioritise In Trending Articles : Yes
Date : Jan 23, 2019, 07:54 AM
Article ID :

It was in the best interest of twins, BT and GT, albeit in quite exceptional circumstances, to remain in their respective prospective adoptive placements, subject to them having regular direct and frequent indirect contact with each other presently and for the future. Accordingly, the Family Court allowed the application of the first applicant prospective adopter to adopt BT, and also the second applicant prospective adopter to adopt GT. It also commented on the decision making process of the first respondent local authority in relation to the separation of the twins.

Background

The proceedings related to the second respondent twins, BT and GT. The twins had three older siblings, F and E (the third and fourth intervenors) and G. All five children had been made the subject of child protection plans, and later, the subject of care orders. In 2015, the judge made placement orders in respect of BT and GT.

In 2016, following a flawed decision making process, the first respondent local authority decided to place the twins separately for adoption. In 2017, GT was matched with the second applicant C, and BT was matched with the first applicant A and B. The twins presently live in those placements. Subsequently, the local authority made a decision to end BT's placement with A and B and served a notice on A and B pursuant to s 35(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the ACA 2002) (Return of child notice). However, the local authority then changed its decision and purported to withdraw the notice.

In due course, the first and second applicants applied to adopt BT and GT. Although at the final hearing all the parties were agreed that adoption orders should be made, the issue remained of whether the decision to separate the twins and place them in different adoptive placements was in the welfare best interests of either child.

Want to access the rest of this story? To read the balance of this article click here (subscription required). This news analysis was first published by LexisPSL Family. To request a free one week trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
  • News
Tags :
  • Adoption
  • family law
adoption
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family Law (General)
Load more comments
Comment by from