Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION/CONTACT: Re C (Contact) [2007]

Sep 29, 2018, 17:39 PM
Slug : re-c-contact-2007
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 6, 2007, 05:19 AM
Article ID : 89069

(Family Division; Bennett J; 30 October 2007)

Placement orders were made in respect of two children born into a family affected by alcoholism and domestic violence. The authority agreed with the mother that contact should continue post-placement, but proposed direct contact only once a year, with indirect contact by letters and photos twice a year, on the basis that contact would prejudice the likelihood of placement. The guardian recommended that direct contact should take place twice a year, and suggested that the need for contact was so great that the need for adoption ought not to take priority. The district judge held that direct contact should take place once a year, and that it was not in the interests of the children to make a contact order under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 26. The mother and guardian appealed; the guardian argued that, even if the frequency of contact was upheld, a contact order was required to prevent any need to police the commitment of the authority to post-placement contact.

The judge had been compelled to make choice between two witnesses; it was implicit in her judgment that she had preferred the evidence of the local authority to that of the guardian, and she had clearly explained that preference. The judge had been entitled not to make a contact order; she had reached a factual conclusion, not susceptible to appeal unless plainly wrong, that the authority was committed to post-placement contact and it was impossible to say that her conclusion was perverse.

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