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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Re T (Placement Order) [2008] EWCA Civ 542

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : re-t-placement-order-2008-ewca-civ-542
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 19, 2008, 06:45 AM
Article ID : 86875

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Hughes LJJ; 19 March 2008)

In relation to two very disturbed children who lacked the ability to engage with others, the professionals recommended a specialist therapeutic foster placement for at least 6 months before a decision was reached as to their long-term placement. The authority plan was for adoption if possible. The judge granted placement orders with a view to eventual adoption of the children, to give the authority the greatest possible certainty and flexibility.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the placement orders, adoption might be in the best interests of a child even if there was a real possibility that an adoptive placement would not be found, but in this case the judge's finding that adoption was in the children's best interests had been premature. These children had not been suitable for placement for adoption at the time the placement orders had been made, and it had not been known if they ever would be until after several months' placement with specialist foster-carers.

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