About the Family Law Week blog
Showing posts with label placement order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label placement order. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Permission to revoke placement orders & oppose adoption
Just to let you know that I have just updated my article on 4 Brick Court's website on the topic of revoking placement orders & opposing adoption to take account of a couple of cases this year on revoking placement orders.
Friday, 2 May 2008
Applications for leave to revoke placement orders
In Re F (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 439 the Court of Appeal has considered the effect of human rights on the interpretation of s 24 of the Adoption & Children Act 1989. The court declined to allow the appeal holding that a local authority had not acted unlawfully in placing a child for adoption when an application for leave to apply to revoke a placement order had been made but not yet heard by the court.
Wall LJ & Wilson LJ dismissed the appeal (Thorpe LJ dissenting) on the basis that the statutory wording was clear and unambiguous. However, they described the actions of the local authority (East Sussex County Council) in the case as a "travesty of good practice which the 2002 Act happens to permit" and "disgraceful" and "the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". They set out their views which have the approval of the President as to the practice to be followed by local authorities in future and suggest that those who do not observe the good practice recommended will be susceptible to judicial review.
The court recommended that those representing applicants for leave should invite local authorities to give an undertaking that they will take no steps to place (the child) with prospective adopters pending the hearing of the application & if such an undertaking is not given to apply without notice in the first instance to the county court for an order in those terms restraining placement.
Wall & Wilson LJJ concluded without hesitation that the county court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions restraining placement as a temporary, holding measure, until both sides could be before the court. The court could either then give directions for a swift hearing, or resolve the matter summarily.
Local authorities who become aware of applications for leave to apply should have reply promptly providing information as to the state of preparation of its plans and likely timescale for implementation and should themselves apply to the court, on short notice, for leave to place the child for adoption under section 24(5) of the 2002 Act.
Wall LJ & Wilson LJ dismissed the appeal (Thorpe LJ dissenting) on the basis that the statutory wording was clear and unambiguous. However, they described the actions of the local authority (East Sussex County Council) in the case as a "travesty of good practice which the 2002 Act happens to permit" and "disgraceful" and "the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". They set out their views which have the approval of the President as to the practice to be followed by local authorities in future and suggest that those who do not observe the good practice recommended will be susceptible to judicial review.
The court recommended that those representing applicants for leave should invite local authorities to give an undertaking that they will take no steps to place (the child) with prospective adopters pending the hearing of the application & if such an undertaking is not given to apply without notice in the first instance to the county court for an order in those terms restraining placement.
Wall & Wilson LJJ concluded without hesitation that the county court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions restraining placement as a temporary, holding measure, until both sides could be before the court. The court could either then give directions for a swift hearing, or resolve the matter summarily.
Local authorities who become aware of applications for leave to apply should have reply promptly providing information as to the state of preparation of its plans and likely timescale for implementation and should themselves apply to the court, on short notice, for leave to place the child for adoption under section 24(5) of the 2002 Act.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Revoking Placement Orders & Opposing Adoption: the leave stage
The recently reported case of Warwickshire County Council v M [2007] EWCA Civ 1084 is not going to make things easier for would be applicants who wish to challenge adoption applications or apply for permission to apply for a revocation of a placement order.
It is difficult to see from this case (albeit the decision was obviously based on the facts of the particular case) how an application for permission to revoke is ever going to meet the high standard of ‘arguable case’ which Wilson LJ has prescribed in Warwickshire.
An updated article considering this case and the related case of
Re P (on leave to oppose adoption applications) can be found on 4 Brick Court's website .
It is difficult to see from this case (albeit the decision was obviously based on the facts of the particular case) how an application for permission to revoke is ever going to meet the high standard of ‘arguable case’ which Wilson LJ has prescribed in Warwickshire.
An updated article considering this case and the related case of
Re P (on leave to oppose adoption applications) can be found on 4 Brick Court's website .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)