Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Louisa Gothard
Louisa Gothard
Senior Solicitor, Head of Family Law
Read on
Re W (A Child) [2017] EWHC 829 (Fam)
Date:25 APR 2017
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Division, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, 6 March 2017)

Public law children – Adoption – Appeals from care and placement orders – Permission to oppose – Whether a child arrangements or an adoption order should be made

The President made an adoption order.

Care proceedings in relation to the child, born in 2012, were initiated and culminated in care and placement orders being made in 2013. She was placed with prospective adopters while her three half siblings remained with their father under a supervision order.

The father’s applications to appeal out of time and oppose the making of an adoption order were initially rejected but his second appeal from the refusal to permit him to oppose the adoption order was allowed and a re-hearing took place in 2014. Subsequently the father’s appeal from the care and placement orders was allowed on the basis of the inadequacy of the judge’s analysis and reasoning. The matter was to be reheard.

During the rehearing in 2015 the local authority altered its position insofar as it was no longer seeking public law orders. The court was left to decide between an adoption order or a child arrangements order in favour of the father. The judge determined that the child should be reunited with her birth family. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found that the proceedings had been sufficiently flawed and that the issue needed to be heard by a different judge.

The President had to determine the local authority’s application for permission to withdraw the care proceedings and the application for an adoption order.

The President held that since the continuation of the public law proceedings had no useful purpose or benefit to the child, leave should be given to the local authority to withdraw the proceedings.

In respect of the adoption application the President set out the appropriate principles to be applied and held that there were considerably more risks and uncertainties in the child moving from the adoptive placement to her birth placement than leaving her where she was. If she were removed at this point there was a high probability of immediate and significant levels of distress and trauma. The child did not have a meaningful relationship with her birth family and notwithstanding the excellent care and commitment offered by the father, it would almost be too much for any parent in his situation. The child’s welfare necessitated that she remained with the adopters. It was in her best interests for an adoption order to be made.

Although the experts agreed that direct contact with her birth family would safeguard the child’s long-term psychological welfare, the President declined to make an order and left it to the adopters, as the parents, to decide how and when it should take place.


This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their families must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case Nos: omitted
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 829 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Date: 6 March 2017
Published: 12 April 2017

Before :


SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION


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


In the matter of W (A Child) 


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


Mr Frank Feehan QC and Ms Madeleine Reardon (instructed by Osbornes) for the applicants (Mr and Mrs A) 
Mr Andrew Bagchi QC and Mr Martin Downs (instructed by Brighton and Hove City Council Legal Services) for the local authority (Brighton and Hove City Council) 
Ms Janet Bazley QC and Mr Chris Barnes (instructed by Harney and Wells) for W’s father
Ms Catherine Jenkins (instructed by Wannops) for W’s mother
Ms Deirdre Fottrell QC and Ms Louise MacLynn (instructed by Freemans) for W’s sister X
Mr Jonathan Bennett (instructed by Railton) for W (by her children’s guardian) 


Hearing dates: 6-9, 12-15, 20 September 2016


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


Judgment

Re W (A Child) [2017] EWHC 829 (Fam).rtf
Financial Remedies Handbook
Financial Remedies Handbook
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook...
£91.99
Family Law Reports
Family Law Reports
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of...
£509.99
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer"...
£519.99