Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
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...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION/CARE: Re M-J (Special Guardianship Order) [2007] EWCA Civ 56

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : re-m-j-special-guardianship-order-2007-ewca-civ-56
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85253

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Carnwath and Wall LJJ; 6 February 2007)

It was not the case that a special guardianship order was to be preferred to adoption in a family placement unless there were cogent reasons to the contrary. The proper formulation was that set out in Re S (Special Guardianship Order) [2007] EWCA Civ 54, paras 47-49 (see below). It was also not the case that the court must adopt the least interventionist option. An order under the Children Act 1989 could only be made if the court considered that doing so would be better for the child than making no order, but it might be material for the court to consider which order was less interventionist. No such consideration could be allowed to derogate from the welfare principle. The recorder had been entitled to conclude that the child's particular welfare needs required the making of an adoption order, and that a special guardianship order would be insufficient to ensure the long-term security and stability of the placement.

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