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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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