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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
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...
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