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: 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