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...
Latest articles
Re P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cobb J, 14 June 2021)Parental Responsibility – Circumcision – 21-month-old Muslim child – Raised in non-Muslim household of extended family – Mother sought...
R (Care Proceedings Joinder of Foster Carers) [2021] EWCA Civ 875
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Baker, Carr, Lewis LJJ, 15 June 2021)Practice and Procedure – Care proceedings – Foster carers joined as party to care proceedings – AppealThe...
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
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...
View all articles

Re W (Adoption Application: Reunification With Family of Origin) [2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 22:27 PM
​The application for an adoption order in respect of the 2-year-old child was refused and the judge authorized the child’s reunification with her birth family.
Slug : re-w-adoption-reunification-with-family-of-origin-2015-ewhc-2039-fam
Meta Title : Re W (Adoption: Reunification With Family of Origin) [2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 3, 2015, 09:11 AM
Article ID : 116541
(Family Division, Russell J, 22 July 2015)

Adoption – Opposition to adoption order – Reunification with birth family – Whether the child’s welfare required adoption as opposed to reunification with her biological family – Whether nothing else would do

Please see attached file below for the full judgment.

The application for an adoption order in respect of the 2-year-old child was refused and the judge authorized the child’s reunification with her birth family.   

The 2-year-old girl was made subject to care and placement orders and had been placed for adoption with Mr and Mrs A for 16 months. They applied for an adoption order.

The child's three older siblings remained living with their father under supervision orders. The father was granted permission to oppose the adoption order application and the Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal out of time against the care and placement orders. It now fell to be determined whether the welfare of the child would be best met by reunification with her birth family or by adoption by Mr and Mrs A.

The judge found that the factual matrix leading to the final orders was at the lower end of the threshold criteria required to make a care order. With the paramountcy of the child's welfare being the overriding consideration and having regard to the welfare checklist and the judgment of Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the child would be returned to her father's care. The case had been finely balanced and the standard of care being offered by the adopters was very high.
Although there were obvious risks in moving the child to her birth family, the possible harm she would experience was likely to only be in the short to medium term and was capable of being overcome with professional support. This had to be balanced with the likely difficulties the child would face if she had to later come to terms with the circumstances of her adoption and the denial of the opportunity to be raised with her siblings.

The father was found to be capable of supporting the child through the short-term transition and the difficulties of adjustment were not sufficient to deny the child her place within her family of origin. This was not a case where nothing else would do.

It was regrettable that the child's siblings' views were not put before the court particularly so because their Art 8 European Convention rights were clearly engaged and the court was obliged to have regard to their wishes and feelings pursuant to s 1(4)(f)(iii) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It could, however, be safely assumed that they would wish for their sister to be returned to them.
Case No: UQ12C00161/SD14C00594
 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam)



 Royal Courts of Justice

 Date: 22/07/2015



 In re W (Adoption application: Reunification with Family of Origin)

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


 Prospective Adopters


 Brighton & Hove City Council
 1st Respondent and2nd Respondent
 Father and Mother
 3rd Respondent
 W (A Child)  (by her children’s guardian)  
 4th Respondent

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

 Madeleine Reardon (instructed by Osbornes Solicitors) for the Applicants
 Andrew Bagchi QC (instructed by the City Council) for the 1st Respondent
 Janet Bazley QC & Chris Barnes (instructed by Harney and Wells Solicitors)  for the 2nd Respondent
 Catherine Jenkins (instructed by Howlett Clarke Solicitors) for the 3rd Respondent
 Jonathan Bennett (instructed by Railtons Solicitors) for the 4th Respondent

 Hearing dates: 18th May to 22nd May 2015

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Re W (Adoption: Reunification With Family of Origin) [2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam) 

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