News & Articles
Legislation & Guidance
Other Useful Links
Online service practice areas
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Family Law Precedents Service
Rayden and Jackson on Relationship Breakdown, Finances and Children
Clarke Hall and Morrison on Children
Family Law Reports
Court of Protection Law Reports
Books and eBooks
The Family Court Practice (Red Book)
Court of Protection Practice
International Family Law Journal
Child and Family Law
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a week
On demand: 1hr of training for just £70
Upcoming: Civil Procedure Rules for family lawyers
Family Law Awards
Visit us at
FLBA National Conference 2018
Dispute Resolution Conference 2018
Ongoing Family Law coverage
Weekly news and comment straight to your inbox
Our books, journals, law reports and looseleafs cover the full spectrum of family law.
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues"
Sir Mark Potter P
A comprehensive account of the law and practice governing public law child protection proceedings
‘23. The central core of the father’s complaint relates to the judge’s application—in his counsel’s submissions, her misapplication—of the principles in Re T, the essence of the complaint being that the judge had, in conflict with those principles, treated the matter as a competition between the adopters and the kinship carers and, illegitimately, been drawn into an inquiry as to which would be the “better” placement. As the passages from her judgment (judgment, paras ,  and ) which I have set out demonstrate, that is not what the judge said she was doing or what she thought she was doing. Nor, in my judgment, is that what she was in fact doing. On the contrary, she was carefully, conscientiously and, in my judgment, correctly applying the learning in Re T.24. How else was the judge to proceed? She was confronted with the fact—the reality—that B’s only full sibling, H, a sibling close to her in age, had been adopted and that H’s adoptive parents were willing to adopt B. That was not something the judge could ignore, as it were put out of her mind, if she was to comply with her statutory duty under s 1(4) and in particular s 1(4)(f) of the 2002 Act. And in having regard to that objective, factual, reality, the judge was doing nothing inconsistent with the learning in Re T and the earlier authorities to which I have referred.25. As Mr Tyler and Ms James pointedly observe, there is nothing in Re T to say that the court can ignore a crucial factor which is necessarily concomitant with a particular placement. The presence of H in B’s life must fall in the credit side of the balance sheet in relation to placement with H’s adopters, just as the loss of H must fall in the debit side in relation to the kinship placement; to ignore this would, they say, be a nonsense. I agree.’
Number of looked-after children continues to increase, while number of adoptions falls
The Department for Education has published information on looked-after children at bo...
Study reveals link between childhood in care and mothers who have babies removed by the courts
A study launched today has found a high number of women, who repeatedly appear before...
Buy family law books from LexisNexis
© RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis 2018.