Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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