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...
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

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
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.


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
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family Law (General)
Load more comments
Comment by from