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
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...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: R (W) v Brent London Borough Council [2010] EWHC 175 (Admin)

Oct 27, 2018, 06:01 AM
Slug : r-w-v-brent-london-borough-council-2010-ewhc-175-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 9, 2010, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85983

(Queen's Bench Division (Admin); Coulson J; 9 February 2010)

The mother sought a judicial review of a local authority's decision to place her daughter for adoption. The child went to live with the adopters three days after a fax sent by the mother's solicitors indicating that mother intended to seek to revoke placement order. The social worker concerned was not aware of the fax until the day after the child moved in with the adopters.

The issue the court considered was at what point had the placement for the adoption taken place. It held that it was not when the matching panel made its decision, nor was it necessary for child to have moved in permanently. In this case it was held to be after all the relevant legal formalities and the introductions process had begun.

The placement was not an abuse of power, irrational or perverse. The fax had not been marked 'urgent', was addressed to someone who was known to be absent for a few days, and the solicitors failed to chase response or to seek an injunction.

The authority's duty to notify the mother in writing of proposed placement 'as soon as possible after making its decision' meant 'as soon as possible in all the circumstances'.

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