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
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Re S (Placement Order: Revocation) [2008] EWCA Civ

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : re-s-placement-order-revocation-2008-ewca-civ
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 17, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87269

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Keene LJJ and Hedley J; 7 October 2008)

When considering a mother's application for leave to revoke a placement order, the judge had been wrong to conclude that the child had been placed for adoption because he was living with a foster carer who although not committed to adopting the child had not precluded doing so. The judge's approach had been recklessly pragmatic; a child was not deemed to have been placed for adoption for the purposes of Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 24 until all three stages had been completed: (i) adoption being in the best interest of the child; (ii) grant of a placement order; and (iii) placement with specific adopters. Section 18(5) required the court to focus on 'prospective' adopters and the judge, in identifying the foster carer as a 'potential' adopter, had been using the wrong adjective.

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