Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
NOTE : This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of 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 family 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.'
I am concerned with the welfare of A dob. 22.5.13 [�A� hereafter, who is now 21 months of age. An application has been made [dated 3.11.14] to this court for an Adoption Order in respect of A by the couple who have cared for her since 13.6.13. I shall refer to them only as the Prospective Adopters in this judgment.
My previous judgment in this matter dated 13.6.14 is set out in the bundle for this hearing [B4-36] and should be read together with this judgment in order to make any attempt to comprehend the complexity of this child�s brief life hitherto and the process which has surrounded her. I do not propose to rehearse the detail of the factual substratum which led to that judgment again here.
On 13.6.14 I made Care and Placement Orders in respect of A to North Yorkshire County Council [�NYCC�] authorising them to place A with the Prospective Adopters. The Care Plan placed before the court by NYCC was to remove A from the care of JD and his partner AC and to place her in a fostering to adopt placement immediately. This was achieved on the same day and I was very pleased to read in the Rule 14.11 (3) report [18.12.14] that A has thrived in their care and has not suffered significantly as a result of the transition from one set of carers to another.
JD and AC have represented themselves before the court as they could not secure public funding. Wendy has also appeared on her own behalf by the link from Newcastle Combined Court Centre. NYCC and the CG were represented by Counsel. On 23.2.15 I heard evidence on oath from the Social Worker, Father, his partner AC and the CG.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.