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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
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...
View all articles

ADOPTION: Re F (Placement Order) [2008] EWCA Civ 439

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : re-f-placement-order-2008-ewca-civ-439
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 1, 2008, 06:07 AM
Article ID : 88081

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Wall and Wilson LJJ; 1 May 2008)

The father, who had not been involved in the care proceedings, sought leave to apply for revocation of the placement order under Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 24(2). However, although the local authority adoption agency was aware of the father's application, it failed to respond to a letter from the father's solicitors, and chose to place the child with the prospective adopters without delay. At the hearing of the father's application for leave, the agency argued that, under s 24(2)(b), leave to apply could not be granted after the child had already been placed for adoption. The father appealed, arguing that s 24(5), which prohibited the placement of a child if there was an unresolved application for revocation of a placement order, applied to an application for leave to make an application for revocation.

By a majority, the court rejected the father's appeal: s 25(5) referred to an application for revocation of a placement order, not to an application for leave to apply for revocation of a placement order. However, the court was extremely critical of the actions of the local authority adoption agency; the agency's conduct had been disgraceful and demonstrated a profound if not total misunderstanding of the agency's functions under the 2002 Act. The agency had set out deliberately to prevent the father from being heard, which was an abuse of power and wholly unacceptable. The social workers had not been properly trained, had been inadequately managed and, even worse, did not appear to see the need for good management; the arrogance of the agency's behaviour was the most shocking aspect. In future, a parent in such a position should invite the adoption agency to give an undertaking not to place the child pending a hearing of the leave application, and should put the agency on notice that if such an undertaking was not forthcoming, an application without notice would be made to the county court for an order in those terms. Following best practice, the agency in this case ought to have replied promptly, explaining that its plans were about to be implemented; the agency could itself have applied to the court on short notice for leave to place the child. Local authorities and adoption agencies must understand that although they had to promote the best interests of the child, the ultimate arbiter of what was in the child's best interests was the court, which had been given the responsibility for making such decisions by Parliament; the courts were not a rubber stamp for local authority or agency actions. Any local authority falling below the standards of good practice and indulging in the shoddy behaviour demonstrated by East Sussex County Council in this case could expect not only severe judicial displeasure and applications for judicial review, but also orders for costs.

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