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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Re A; Coventry City Council v CC and A [2007] EWCA Civ 1383

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : re-a-coventry-city-council-v-cc-and-a-2007-ewca-civ-1383
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 21, 2007, 10:14 AM
Article ID : 87791

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Moore-Bick and Wilson LJJ; 21 December 2007)

The foster mother sought leave to apply for an adoption order in relation to the 9 month old child, who had been placed in the foster mother's care at 6 days old. The judge refused leave, placing great emphasis on the magistrates' approval of the final care plan, notwithstanding that the guardian supported the foster mother's application.

In what might be the first decision referable to grant of leave to apply under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 42(6), the court held that the legal principles relevant to the exercise of the discretion whether to grant leave pursuant to each of the s 42 subsections were identical, so that the principles identified in Re M and L; Warwickshire v M [2007] EWCA Civ 1084 as relevant to the grant of leave to apply for revocation of a placement order under s 42(2) could be applied. The welfare of the child was therefore a relevant, but not paramount consideration; the application's prospect of success was also a relevant consideration. The judge had been wrong to describe the magistrates as having reached a decision that the child's placement should not be with the foster mother. A care plan served to explain how a local authority would exercise the powers invested in it by a care order, but the proper forum for consideration of the identity of the optimum adopter or adopters was not the court making the care and placement orders; that issue was best ventilated in an application for an adoption order, such as the foster mother sought to make.

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