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
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...
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....
View all articles
Authors

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Public law children – Adoption – Special guardianship order in favour of biological family member – Weight to be given to child’s placement with prospective adopters – Meaning of ‘nothing else will do’
The appeal from a special guardianship order was allowed.
Slug : re-w-a-child-2016-ewca-civ-793
Meta Title : Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793
Meta Keywords : Public law children – Adoption – Special guardianship order in favour of biological family member – Weight to be given to child’s placement with prospective adopters – Meaning of ‘nothing else will do’
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 3, 2016, 04:11 AM
Article ID : 112865

(Court of Appeal, Jackson, McFarlane and Lindblom LJJ, 29 July 2016)

Public law children – Adoption – Special guardianship order in favour of biological family member – Weight to be given to child’s placement with prospective adopters – Meaning of ‘nothing else will do’

The appeal from a special guardianship order was allowed.

The child, born in 2014, was placed with foster carers shortly after birth when her parents were unable to care for her. Care and placement orders were granted and no suitable kinship carers were identified. At 7 months the child was placed with the prospective adopters where she had remained ever since. An adoption application was made which was opposed by the paternal grandparents who had not previously been aware of the child’s existence. They sought a child arrangements or special guardianship order. An independent social worker and the guardian supported their application.

The application for an adoption order was dismissed and a special guardianship order was granted. The prospective adopters appealed.

The appeal was allowed.

When the child had been placed with prospective adopters for a significant period of time the welfare balance to be struck where a biological family member put themselves forward at a late stage had to reflect those circumstances. In those circumstances the court would require expert evidence as to the strength of the attachment between the child and the adopters and the likely emotional and psychological consequences of ending it. In this instance the generalised evidence of the social worker and the guardian fell far short of what was required.

The phrase ‘nothing else will do’ was no more than a useful distillation of the proportionality and necessity test set out in the European Convention and reflected the need to afford paramount consideration to the welfare of the child throughout her lifetime.

The existence of a viable home with the child’s biological grandparents should make than option a ‘runner’ but not an automatic ‘winner’. There was no right or presumption for a child to be brought up by her natural family.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 793

Case No: B4/2016/2297

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Mr Justice Bodey
The High Court, Family Division
NE15PO1527

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 29/07/2016

Before:


LORD JUSTICE JACKSON


LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE


and


LORD JUSTICE LINDBLOM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


W (A child)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mr Frank Feehan QC and Mr Martin Todd (instructed by Carr & Co Solicitors) for the Appellants
Ms Rachel Langdale QC and Ms Ravinder Randhawa (instructed by North Tyneside Council legal department) for the first respondent local authority
Ms Emily Ward (instructed by Swinburne Maddison Solicitors) for the second respondent grandparents
Nicholas Stonor QC and Mr Stephen Ainsley (instructed by DMA Law) for the Child through her Children’s Guardian


Hearing date : 20th July 2016


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment Approved

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793.rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from