Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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