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/SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP: S v B and Newport City Council; Re K

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : s-v-b-and-newport-city-council-re-k
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 27, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88119

(Family Division; Hedley J; 27 July 2006)

In the case of a grandchild living with the maternal grandparents, together with other members of the wider family, a special guardianship order was more appropriate than an adoption order, even though an adoption order would have reduced the grandparents' anxiety about possible interference from the parents. Special guardianship had been introduced very much to deal with the concept of long-term familial placements that were not required to be secured by care orders. In this case adoption would significantly skew normal family relationships and structures, whereas special guardianship would permit the familial carers to have the practical authority and standing of parents, while leaving intact real and readily comprehensible relationships within the family. In order to allay the rational anxiety about parental interference, the court made: a prohibited steps order preventing the parents from having any direct contact with the child without a court order; a s 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 order without limit of time, preventing the parents from making contact applications without first obtaining permission from the court; and a specific issues order, authorising a change of surname.

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